Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BEXLEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL

CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL

TEIGNMOUTH QUAY COMPANY BILL

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time tomorrow.

ADVOCATES' WIDOWS' AND ORPHANS' FUND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

RAF Vehicle (Accident)

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now publish the findings of the board of inquiry into the accident in Wiltshire on Saturday 10 January involving a Royal Air Force vehicle; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Cohen: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to change emergency procedures, following the accident to the military convoy in Wiltshire on 10 January; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Stanley): For details of the accident I refer the hon. Members to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) on 19 January. The report of the board of inquiry has not yet been submitted to Ministers, but I understand that it is classified and will not therefore be published. The requirement for changes in procedures will be assessed in the light of careful consideration of the board's findings.

Mr. Hughes: Does this incident not illustrate the paradox that the very existence of weapons which it is claimed will never be used, yet are for the defence of Britain, places the population in jeopardy?

Mr. Stanley: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, I cannot comment on the particular consignment involved in this convoy. However, I can assure him and the House that there was never any hazard to the public from the accident

at any time. With regard to the wider defence paradox to which he referred, it has been the policy of successive Governments, until now adopted by the official Opposition, that it is in the interests of our defence and security that we have nuclear weapons which are there to deter, and are there not to be used.

Mr. Cohen: Can the Minister confirm that this juggernaut, which lay on its side for 18 hours, was carrying nuclear depth-charges? What was the risk of an explosion or nuclear leak? Did not the accident put at risk not just soldiers but the civilian population? Is it not time for a thorough review of the emergency procedures, involving the civilian authorities? In the meantime, should not the Government issue new guidelines covering the width of roads that such vehicles should use and the weather conditions in which they should be allowed to travel?

Mr. Stanley: All the earlier parts of the hon. Gentleman's question were answered when I replied to the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), who asked the first question. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall study very carefully the findings of the board of inquiry which has been set up following the accident. If there is a need to make changes in procedures or practices, we will consider that most carefully.

Mr. Key: Will my right hon. Friend accept that while it is perfectly clear that a mistake was made with regard to the accident, my constituents and I would rather that he took his time over the board of inquiry and came to correct conclusions, which would include consideration of the emergency procedures to be adopted in those circumstances? Will he also accept that a far greater danger to my constituents comes from the antics of members of CND and Cruisewatch, who can get close to the vehicles, cut brake pipes and attack the people and vehicles, and those vehicle convoys should be far better protected from such activists?

Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. I assure him that we will give a considered response to the board of inquiry report. I fully endorse his latter point and I join him in deploring the irresponsibility of those who seek to obstruct the proper movement of military vehicles on the public highway.

Mr. Adley: Would my right hon. Friend care to speculate on what might happen in the Soviet Union if Soviet citizens decided to behave in this way? Does he believe that the authorities there would view with equanimity people behaving in such a way that could only give comfort to the nation's enemies? Does he think that the mythical hon. Member for Vladivostok, North-West would be able to stand up in the Kremlin, or wherever, and defend the actions of his constituents?

Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend makes an entirely pertinent point. The freedoms which, happily, we in Britain enjoy are certainly not enjoyed in the East. The rationale of our defence policy is that we continue to enjoy those fundamental freedoms. The Opposition are happy to take advantage of those freedoms, but are not prepared to devote sufficient resources to their defence policy to ensure that they are maintained.

Mr. Cartwright: While it clearly makes sense not to reveal details about the essential character of nuclear warheads in Britain, why does the Ministry of Defence not follow the example of the civil nuclear industry and be


much more open about its safety procedures? Does the Minister accept that that sort of frankness would do much more to allay public anxiety than these continued bland assurances that nothing can go wrong?

Mr. Stanley: I think that the hon. Gentleman is somewhat mistaken, because, as we have made clear in previous parliamentary answers, detailed precautions are taken. The precautions that we take over military nuclear materials are at least as stringent as the precautions applied in the movement of civil nuclear materials, and those were set out in full in the Official Report of 25 July 1983, at column 1291.

Mr. Couchman: Can my right hon. Friend say whether this is the sort of vehicle which would be used to transport nuclear waste from Devonport to Gillingham, if present reports are correct that my right hon. Friend plans such a movement of nuclear waste to the former naval dockyard in my constituency?

Mr. Stanley: I regret that I cannot comment on the method of transporting nuclear materials of this sort.

Mr. McNamara: Will the Minister confirm that one of the freedoms which our American allies happily enjoy, but which we do not, is the Freedom of Information Act? As a result of that, a report was published in 1984 informing United States citizens, but not the citizens of the United Kingdom, of exercises Sharp Foil Senator and Franchise, which were joint exercises between the United States and British military forces on the safe transporting of nuclear weapons in the United Kingdom and in Europe. Will he confirm that the nuclear accident response units in Britain and in Europe were described in that report as lagging behind the national capability of the United States? Can he also confirm that at least we are on that level in trying to deal with these terrible accidents?

Mr. Stanley: It is no secret that we regularly practise the safety aspects of the movement of nuclear materials. It is right for us to do so, and that has been done by successive Governments. When the hon. Gentleman draws a parallel with the United States, I must remind him that the United States takes exactly the same position as successive British Governments have taken. The United States' position is the same as our own. We neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons, and we do not comment on their method of transportation.

Procurement Projects

Mr. Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what procurement projects over £20 million are running three months behind delivery schedules; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Archie Hamilton): There are great problems of definition raised in this question and it would involve disproportionate cost to define and collect the data.

Mr. Wainwright: If that is too difficult a question for the Minister, will he tell the House how many cases there are of project delivery and completion dates being postponed and re-set, thus reducing the apparent delay? Further, will he tell the House how far these delays are condoned by his Department in order to accommodate the rising costs associated with the Trident missile?

Mr. Hamilton: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that I do not know about condoning such reprogramming of projects. In reply to the first question, we cannot put our hands on the information in the form that the hon. Gentleman needs it.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Does my hon. Friend recognise that there is considerable anxiety in defence fields about the delay in the Foxhunter radar for the Tornado F3? Does he agree that this rather makes nonsense of the airborne early warning debates if we cannot fit the appropriate radar to the aeroplane that is supposed to defend us in the event of hostilities?

Mr. Hamilton: There have been delays on the Foxhunter radar. However, deliveries are well under way. We are discussing with GEC Avionics the basis on which to resolve the problems associated with the current radar sets and to achieve an early demonstration of acceptable performance. I cannot comment further while discussions with GEC are in progress.

Mr. Mason: Late deliveries will result in underspend by the Ministry of Defence. Although the Minister cannot give the information that the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) has called for, will he tell the House what was the underspend by the Ministry of Defence during 1985–86 due to either the inefficiency of the firms or industrial disputes, and what is the estimated underspend by the Ministry of Defence during the current year?

Mr. Hamilton: It is too early to estimate what the underspend for this year will be. I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman with the information on the previous year.

Sir John Farr: Can my hon. Friend say to what extent late delivey by manufacturers has occurred because of frequent, and probably unnecessary, alterations of specification by the Ministry of Defence?

Mr. Hamilton: The alteration of specification has been a difficulty in the past. This is why the more that we can move on to fixed-price contracts, the more will Ministry of Defence specifications as well as price and delivery be tied down. That is why we are moving towards that as much as we can.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Will the Minister bear in mind that although it is advantageous to have a fixed-price contract, sometimes if one is too rigid about that one loses the advantage of advancing technology? Will he consider having slight flexibility in fixed-price contracts?

Mr. Hamilton: One must accept that there are occasionally quantum leaps in technology which make it necessary to revise a specification. There may be change in the perceived threat, which would mean that one would have to change the specification as well.

Falkland Islands

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his recent visit to the Falkland Islands.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Younger): My recent visit to the Falkland Islands was most interesting and informative and it gave me the opportunity


to review the garrison before it completes its move to the Mount Pleasant complex. I was also able to talk to many members of the armed forces and the islanders at all levels.

Mr. Chapman: I thank my right hon. Friend for that statement and welcome the opening of the new Mount Pleasant airport complex the weekend before last. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that project means that the defence of the islands can be secured more effectively, more quickly and more economically? If that is my right hon. Friend's interpretation of it, does he hold out the prospect of the islands being adequately defended with fewer armed services personnel there than hitherto?

Mr. Younger: Yes, my hon. Friend is correct in that. The successful completion of the new Mount Pleasant complex will enable us to have adequate defence for the islands at all times and to do this with fewer forces than would otherwise have been needed, because we now have the ability to reinforce quickly and efficiently.

Mr. Dalyell: What professional advice came from senior Royal Air Force commanders about the adequacy of air cover, and particularly the Phantoms?

Mr. Younger: Our advice from all our military advisers, including those in the RAF, is that the present provision for air defence is adequate with the likely threat in mind.

Sir Antony Buck: Does my right hon. Friend agree that while it costs a lot of money to garrison the Falklands, there are none the less considerable advantages in continuing with that, in that battalions that have served there go down as good battalions and come back as crack battalions because of the way in which they can train out there and operate military equipment?

Mr. Younger: I very much agree with my hon. and learned Friend. Apart from the undoubtedly high training value of what the forces do there, it is immensely impressive to see what they achieve when they are all there for a total period of four months each. They look extremely professional and they are very professional in what they do.

Mr. Foulkes: Does the Secretary of State recall that in his honeymoon period as Secretary of State for Defence, before he was gagged by the Ministry of Defence spokesman, he said that it was his intention to reduce the garrison on the Falklands to 1,000 men? Will he break free from the shackles of the MOD and tell the House whether that is still his intention?

Mr. Younger: I did not know that I had had a honeymoon, but I am not sure that I would choose to spend it with the hon. Gentleman. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we never give details of particular force levels at any time, but they are fully adequate to deal with any threat.

Trident

Mr. Spencer: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the Trident programme.

Mrs. Shields: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the latest estimated cost of the Trident missile system; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Younger: The revised estimate for Trident at average 1986–87 prices is £9,265 million. In line with

established conventions adopted for the recosting of the defence programme, the estimate is based on the average exchange rate applicable in June 1986, namely, £1=$1·50. The United Kingdom share of the revised estimate is 62 per cent.—its highest recorded level. After allowing for the effects of inflation and exchange rate variations, this represents a real reduction in estimate over last year of some £546 million.
It is now assessed that on average the programme will provide some 7,500 direct and 6,000 indirect jobs over the procurement period, with the figures rising to 15,000 direct and 12,000 indirect in the peak years.
The Select Committee on Defence previously asked that when announcing the annual revised estimate I should report on the state of the project as a whole. I am pleased to report that the project remains on programme to enter service as planned in the mid-1990s. There has been no slippage in the in-service date since the decision to proceed with Trident II was announced in March 1982. I am, as last year, sending to the Chairmen of the Select Committee on Defence and of the Public Accounts Committee a more detailed report covering the points on which the Select Committee on Defence sought advice. I am also placing a copy of the report in the Library of the House.

Mr. Spencer: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if we accepted the advice of the Labour party and spent the money on conventional weapons rather than on Trident, all we would get is 1·1 armoured divisions, which would still leave the Soviets with a massive 2:1 superiority?

Mr. Younger: My hon. and learned Friend is correct. I am not sure whether it is 1·1 armoured divisions, or 1. In any case, it is wholly inconsistent with the theory that by producing such an extra division we would in any way outweigh the loss of the Trident deterrent, which is a vital part of our defence.

Mrs. Shields: In the event of possible cuts in ballistic missile stocks by the United States and the Soviet Union, do the Government plan to continue British escalation of the arms race in the face of superpower de-escalation?

Mr. Younger: We have always made it clear that if there were to be large reductions in ballistic missile systems we would regard it as right that we should be prepared to consider whether we could make a further contribution. I hope that the hon. Lady and her colleagues will be able to confirm that, having allegedly come to an agreement with the SDP on defence, the Liberal party has abandoned its links with the CND, because it would be a great reassurance if that could be made clear.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does not escalation depend on the number of missiles and warheads? Is not the Government's position that we have a minimum deterrent and will continue to retain it? Is that not what is happening. thereby giving us a flexibility that did not exist when we had to bring in Chevaline?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is right. Our present deterrent, the Polaris system, is a minimum deterrent, and our proposed future deterrent, the Trident system, will also be a minimum deterrent, in the context of the defences that it will have to breach in the mid-1990s and onwards. Trident is still a minimum deterrent.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Secretary of State give the House an indication of the share of the naval procurement that


is engaged by Trident? Will he explain the impact of that on the conventional fleet and his intention or otherwise of ordering three frigates a year?

Mr. Younger: This has no direct effect on either of those points. As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, the expected cost of the Trident system over its life will average out at 3 per cent. of the defence budget, or 6 per cent. of the procurement budget. Even at its peak it will be only about 13 per cent. of the procurement budget in total. Today's announcement of lower costs for Trident makes that position even better.

Mr. Leigh: Would it be a fair summary to say that while the SDP and Liberal party are agreed in their opposition to Trident, the SDP believes in obsolete weapons and the Liberals do not know what their mind is? Was not what we saw yesterday less a launch of a successful defence policy and more a relaunch into political obscurity?

Mr. Younger: I am not sure how it is possible — although, no doubt we shall discover — to relaunch a non-policy. As an extra twist, the Liberal party has made it clear that it does not have the information to be able to decide what should replace the Trident system, but it seems to be equally certain, in spite of that lack of information, that whatever it is it is not Trident.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I am sure the Secretary of State will agree that the reduction in cost, or most of it, is because, happily for him, at least temporarily, the exchange rate of the pound against the dollar is fairly favourable. Does he agree that he has no control over that, and of course exchange rates can go the other way? Does he agree that the cost of Trident, be it £9 billion or £10 billion at the end of the day, will be borne by our non-nuclear defence forces? That cost will be borne by the cost of equipment for the Army, Navy and Royal Air Force. What on earth is the point of spending money on what is called, chillingly, a weapon of the last resort when we will not have enough money to buy weapons of the first resort to prevent war in Europe becoming a nuclear war?

Mr. Younger: First of all, I am sorry if I did not make it clear earlier that the figure I have quoted of £546 million real saving on the programme is after taking account of the exchange rate variations. Therefore, that figure is a real reduction in the real cost of the Trident programme.
With regard to whether it is right to spend money on the programme, I must say to the right hon. Gentleman that there is no way in which the expenditure of an equivalent sum of money on conventional weapons could begin to replace the deterrent effect of the Trident system. That is the absolute justification for the expenditure on the programme. As regards the comparison that has been made, I am not sure why the right hon. Gentleman is so keen to protect the rest of the budget by abolishing the Trident system, because the Tornado programme is a larger programme and I have not heard the right hon. Gentleman calling for that to be abandoned in order to save the budget.

Defence-Related Industries (Jobs)

Mr. Hayes: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the number of United Kingdom jobs in defence-related industries, giving a separate figure for jobs related to the Polaris and Trident programmes.

Mr. Thurnham: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the latest estimate of jobs created by the Trident programme.

Mr. Younger: Nearly 400,000 United Kingdom jobs were sustained by the Ministry of Defence's equipment expenditure in 1984–85, the latest year for which figures are available. Exports of defence equipment accounted for a further 120,000 jobs. As regards the Polaris programme, an estimated 11,000 Ministry of Defence civilians are employed in maintaining the nuclear deterrent. Finally, I refer my hon. Friends to the answer that I gave a few moments ago on estimated jobs created as a result of the Trident programme.

Mr. Hayes: I am sure my right hon. Friend is delighted that 1986 was a record year for defence exports, with sales totalling over £5 billion. Therefore, is he not dismayed at the Labour party policy, which was ratified at the 1986 conference, which would abolish the defence export sales organisation and put thousands of British jobs at risk?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. I have noted that the Labour party proposes to disband the defence export sales organisation, and it admits that its policies will
lead inevitably to a major reduction in Britain's current arms sales".
That will come as shocking news to those who depend on defence exports for a job, and I hope that the Labour party has noted that.

Mr. Thurnham: In the unlikely event of a Labour Government being elected, Trident being scrapped and American bases being removed from this country, can my right hon. Friend say how many United Kingdom jobs would be lost?

Mr. Younger: I estimate that United States forces in the United Kingdom at present provide, directly and indirectly, about 30,000 jobs for British citizens. If Labour party policy is to remove all United States nuclear bases from the United Kingdom, those jobs would clearly be put at risk, quite apart from the damage that that policy would do to NATO's defences.

Mr. Nellist: Why should the House of Commons or working people in the country as a whole believe a word that the Secretary of State for Defence and other Tory Members say with their synthetic sympathy about the number of jobs at risk in the defence industries when 4·5 million unemployed people in Britain now get no sympathy from Tory Members? If the Secretary of State thinks that Trident is such a popular programme, why does he not transfer the £9·25 billion into the health and housing expenditure of the Government and hold a flag day for Trident?

Mr. Younger: I am dubious about the hon. Gentleman's claim to speak for the working people of this country. I cannot understand how even he imagines that the unemployment problem would be assisted by deliberately destroying 30,000 British jobs by the removal of United States bases. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make representations to his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to abandon that policy forthwith.

Mr. James Lamond: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is nothing to be proud of in the export of arms to the rest of the world, especially the Third world, which is very much more in need of socially useful goods? If the money


that is spent on arms, exported or otherwise, was spent on socially useful goods we would live in a much better and more moral country.

Mr. Younger: A great deal of money is spent, and successful exports are carried out, by this country in many matters that have nothing to do with arms sales. The hon. Gentleman has to face the fact that there are many thousands of jobs in this country directly dependent upon the defence industry and if he proposes to destroy it he will answer for it.

Mr. Franks: Is my right hon. Friend aware of a random survey conducted by the North-Western Evening Mail in Barrow, published last Friday, in which people were asked,
Do you believe that the country needs an independent nuclear deterrent?
Is he further aware that 91 per cent. said yes?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to that fact. On every occasion that the British people have been asked to pronounce on that matter they have made their views very clear. As my hon. Friend knows only too well, the Trident programme will provide employment over the next few years for 4,000 in Barrow, where the submarines are built, and about 2,500 construction jobs on the Clyde while the facilities there are being made.

Mr. Denzil Davies: The less the Secretary of State says about jobs, the better. There are far fewer people employed in the defence industry now than in 1979 when the Government took office. Jobs have been lost in the ordnance factories, in the dockyards at Chatham, Devonport, Rosyth and in many other establishments. Is he aware that of the 400,000 jobs he mentioned, at least 95 per cent. of them are concerned with non-nuclear defence equipment? If, as we believe, there will be cuts in non-nuclear defence equipment to pay for Trident, a substantial proportion of those jobs will be put at risk by the Government's policies.

Mr. Younger: I admire the right hon. Gentleman's courage in raising the question of defence expenditure when it is over 20 per cent. higher in real terms than it was when the Labour party was last in government. I can understand that he wishes to keep off the subject of the effect on jobs of the Labour party's policy to cancel Trident. It is no exaggeration to say that it would not only devastate the economy of a place such as Barrow but would have devastating effects on the west and east of Scotland at Rosyth and Faslane. The Labour party will have to answer to many people for those destructive policies.

Electronic Data Systems

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on current work being undertaken for his Department by Electronic Data Systems.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: A subsidiary of Electronic Data Systems used to have a small contract to provide computer bureau services to the Royal Air Force. However, this work has now been transferred to another company with which we have no reason to believe EDS has any interest.

Mr. Dalyell: Do Defence Ministers accept the documentary evidence that I have sent to the Home

Secretary and the Minister of State, Treasury, to the effect that EDS attempted to abuse the immigration rules of this country? In that light, may we have an assurance that the Ministry of Defence will not consider EDS for major data contracts, which could ultimately have a value greater than that of AWACS?

Mr. Archie Hamilton: It is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department to decide whether an offence has been committed and we shall await advice from the Home Office. In the meantime, EDS will remain on our list of potential contractors.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Further to the question of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), what are the implications for the use of high technology in British defences of the determination of the United States Government to enforce their laws extra-territorially, well beyond the agreement of COCON, which was supinely accepted by his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry?

Mr. Archie Hamilton: I am confused as to what that has to do with EDS. We are having discussion with the United States Government on extra-territoriality and hope to reach agreement soon.

Procurement Expenditure

Mr. Campbell-Savours: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the projected outturn for defence procurement expenditure for 1986–87.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: The defence procurement Vote provides for expenditure in the current year of £8,762 million.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: In so far as the outturn figure includes expenditure on the Zircon project, and not wishing to push the Minister on any aspect of that matter which is classified, may I ask him to tell us how much has been spent on that project to date?

Mr. Hamilton: The House will not expect me to comment on that project. Any question that the hon. Gentleman wishes to ask would be better put in writing to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Conway: Will my right hon. Friend tell me, in the light of his Department's contracts with Shrewsbury companies and their importance to our local economy and job provision, whether the Opposition have advised him of the so-called socially useful purposes to which the main battle tank engine production line at Perkins in Shrewsbury would be put, together with the DROPS ammunition project at Multilift — each of which provides a considerable number of jobs and much local income — if the Labour party's policy were put into operation?

Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend has put his finger on a difficult problem. I do not see how people involved in high technology industries will be able to switch to making relatively low technology products for the Third world.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: Does the Ministry intend to procure three frigates and one AOR next year?

Mr. Hamilton: We are permanently keeping our future purchases of ships under review.

Mr. Gale: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in seeking to save money by trying to replace Trident with


Tomahawk, which appears to be one of the options that the alliance is dithering over at the moment, it would be replacing a proven system with an inadequate one, which would be both dangerous and disturbing to the NATO Alliance? Does he further agree that the time has come for the alliance leaders to own up and admit that they belong to a unilateralist party?

Mr. Hamilton: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Submarine-launched cruise missiles have grave difficulties, one of which is that they have to operate in shallow water. If they become detectable, they are less of a deterrent than something that has a larger area of ocean in which to operate.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Is the Minister concerned about the regional balance of the procurement budget, and will he confirm that 50 per cent. of the budget is spent in the south-east of England, including London, and only 2 per cent. in Wales and 6 per cent. in Scotland?

Mr. Hamilton: I have to accept that there is a regional imbalance in defence expenditure. We are always looking at ways of righting that imbalance.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Is my hon. Friend fully satisfied that that proportion of this outturn that is attributable to the Nimrod programme was spent on Nimrod and was not siphoned off to spend on other projects by GEC?

Mr. Hamilton: I would need notice to answer such a question and I invite my hon. Friend to put it in writing.

Mr. McNamara: As the Government's White Paper on expenditure forecasts a cut in defence expenditure of £1 billion over the next three years, will the Minister tell us which part of the equipment programme will be hit by that cut?

Mr. Hamilton: The procurement programme is always under review.

Mr. Forman: Does my hon. Friend's Department still estimate that there is a sizeable relative price effect which influences defence expenditure in the Ministry of Defence, and to what extent have his improved managerial systems within the Department led to some discernible economy?

Mr. Hamilton: We have been able to get a much larger percentage of our contracts on to a fixed price arrangement and this has led to great savings, which we estimate are not less than 5 per cent., and may be as much as 10 per cent., of the overall procurement budget. That goes some way towards offsetting the inevitable inflationary increases in defence equipment which are above the general level of inflation.

Soviet Nuclear Forces (Attack)

Mr. Caborn: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether Her Majesty's Government have assessed the likelihood of an attack on Britain by Soviet short-range intermediate nuclear forces.

Mr. Stanley: That threat is under continuous assessment.

Mr. Caborn: As the Reykjavik summit raised many expectations about the possibility of removing nuclear weapons from Europe, will there be a United Kingdom initiative through NATO to set up negotiations for a freeze on short-range nuclear weapons, even if there is no progress on long-range intermediate nuclear weapons?

Mr. Stanley: As the House has been told on many occasions, we are more interested in obtaining reductions than in producing a freeze. A freeze in that area would simply freeze a massive Soviet superiority. On short-range systems, in Europe the Warsaw Pact has a 9:1 advantage in missiles in the 150 km to 1,000 km range and an 8:1 advantage in missiles with a range below 150 km. It would make no sense at all to freeze that degree of Soviet superiority.

Mr. Churchill: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that so long as Britain has as an effective independent nuclear deterrent, as she has today and will have if the Government are returned in future with the Trident system, and so long as we remain a strong member of the NATO Alliance, with American nuclear weapons based in Britain, there will never be a serious nuclear threat to Britain? However, if the Labour party's policies were ever to be implemented that risk would increase enormously.

Mr. Stanley: I agree with my hon. Friend. Provided that we maintain the policies that have stood us so well for the past 40 years we shall continue to enjoy our peace with freedom. If we follow the policies advocated by the official Opposition, we could begin to jeopardise that.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Will the Minister return to the question that was put to him? Will he confirm that if the British Government were to support the proposal of the Socialist parties in West and East Germany for a 150 km nuclear-free corridor, it would save Britain from attack by short-range nuclear weapons?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman should refer to the remarks that I made on that in the recent debate on the Army. If he consults the Official Report he will see that the proposal for a 150 km nuclear-free zone in the central front makes no sense at all because every square inch of that zone can be successfully targeted by battlefield nuclear weapons possessed by the Warsaw Pact.

Mr. Jim Spicer: How long would the British Corps in Germany, which is really an extension of the United Kingdom, survive a Russian attack without being able to call upon at least battlefield nuclear weapons?

Mr. Stanley: I agree with my hon. Friend that it would make no sense at all to move the tactical nuclear capability of 1st British Corps. As we have made clear on many occasions, if the role of 1st British Corps were reduced to a conventional role only, its position on the central front would be completely non-sustainable.

Mr. Cartwright: Will the Minister assure the House that, in responding to the threat of Soviet conventionally armed tactical ballistic missiles, priority will be given to improving passive defences such as target hardening and dispersal, rather than being tempted down the road of exotic and expensive technologies involved in a European star wars system?

Mr. Stanley: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government attach great importance to passive defences and the hardening programme to which he refers.

Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Labour party's policy were adopted the Soviets would not need to bother attacking? [Interruption.]

Ms. Clare Short: Yes!

Mr. Speaker: Order. Interruptions take up time.

Mr. Stanley: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that for 40 years Britain has not had a serious threat of being subjected to nuclear blackmail. The policies that the Labour party wishes to follow could well expose Britain to nuclear blackmail.

Mr. Denzil Davies: The Minister referred to battlefield nuclear weapons and 1st British Corps. Will he confirm that 1st British Corps does not have any nuclear weapons and that the nuclear weapons are American-owned and controlled? Will he confirm also what General Rogers said the other day in an interview — that every member of NATO. except France and Iceland, has to agree to unleash battlefield nuclear weapons? If General Rogers is correct, does that mean that any country in NATO, apart from France and Iceland, could veto the unleashing of those weapons?

Mr. Stanley: I do not know what criticism the right hon. Gentleman is making, because the arrangements for the nuclear weapons of 1st British Corps are exactly the same as those enjoyed by previous Labour Governments.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Thurnham: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 January.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who serve the most vulnerable in our society — the disabled, the sick and the elderly — should remember that the telephone is a lifeline, as should Opposition Members who support the bully tactics of striking militants?

The Prime Minister: I share my hon. Friend's concern about the industrial action and its effects on businesses, jobs, the old and the sick. Having expressed that concern, it is right that we should also thank those employees of British Telecom who are keeping the telephone network going, and those who are maintaining the emergency services in spite of working under difficult circumstances at times.

Mr. Kinnock: It is now publicly clear from the Prime Minister's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) that the Government knew in October of the intention to include specific material on a secret defence project in a BBC programme. Can the Prime Minister explain the contrast between four months of complacency and four days of activity last week, of seeking injunctions, sending Treasury Solicitor's letters, threatening newspaper editors and sending the police into magazine offices? Why so casual for so long and so frenzied so late?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, in October 1986 the Government learnt of the BBC's intention to show specific material on a secret defence project. Discussions took place between the Government and the BBC, which subsequently decided, as a result of those discussions, not to show the material on the project. Therefore, the discussions were successful.

Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister really hope to convince the country that a chat with the BBC is a sufficient way in which to safeguard national security? Does she agree — [Interruption.] — that if a national security secret is worth having it is worth keeping, and that it required proper action in October to see that it was kept? Does she agree that her actions, subsequent to last week, have been produced by lateness, clumsiness and vindictiveness?

The Prime Minister: The discussions with the BBC were successful. The BBC decided not to show the film. I am advised that no injunction would have been obtained without evidence against the New Statesman that would have satisfied the judge that there was a significant risk of the New Statesman publishing material on the project. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should direct his strictures against the New Statesman and Duncan Campbell.

Mr. Kinnock: The New Statesman would not have come into it had the Prime Minister acted when she knew that there was likely to he material that would jeopardise national security, as she defined it. Will the Prime Minister now tell us why there was complacency and inactivity for four months and such frenzy for four days?

The Prime Minister: I have already said that, as a result of the action which the Government took—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. Lady failed to act.

The Prime Minister: —the BBC did not show that film. I have already said that, with regard to the New Statesman, I am advised that no injunction would have been obtained without evidence that would have satisfied the judge that there was a significant risk of the New Statesman publishing material on the project. Again I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that I think he should direct his strictures at Left-wing organs such as the New Statesman, which have, in spite of the fact that the BBC refused to show the film, deliberately attempted to release material which is contrary to national security.

Sir Marcus Fox: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the practice of consulting the Leader of the Opposition on matters of security, bearing in mind that Mr. Duncan Campbell, an adviser to the Labour party on security and defence matters, already has one conviction for breaking the Official Secrets Act? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]

The Prime Minister: That is not a matter for me.

Mr. Steel: Is the Prime Minister concerned — [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This noise takes up a lot of time.

Mr. Steel: Is the Prime Minister concerned al the damage done to British-Irish relations by the disclosure of the interception of communications with the Irish embassy? Is it the Government's policy to monitor communications of members of the European Community in this way? Is this not another example of the case for a senior parliamentary committee to oversee the intelligence services?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, there is a long-established practice that Governments do not comment on matters of this kind. That was the practice of the Government whom the right hon. Gentleman's party kept in power too.

Mr. Budgen: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Budgen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the educational policies of Brent have now spread to Wolverhampton where, at the Colton Hills school, white and West Indian pupils have been forced to attend Punjabi lessons without the consent of their parents and without proper consultation? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that when the parents objected to this piece of social engineering they were treated with abuse and arrogance? Is it not clear that the Tory manifesto ought to contain a clear commitment to reducing the power of politicians and to increasing the power of parents?

The Prime Minister: I am aware of my hon. Friend's concern on this matter and of the fact that he has already had an Adjournment debate in the House on it. As he knows, the new Education Act gives parents stronger representation on governing bodies, and the first annual meeting for parents must be held before the end of this year's summer term.
With regard to the wider matter, we are anxious that parents should be given a stronger voice in the education of their children and that they should have greater freedom to choose the school which best suits their child.

Mr. Haynes: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Haynes: Is the Prime Minister aware that the House and the nation are watching the Government farce on Zircon—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Noise takes up a lot of time.

Mr. Haynes: Who arranged the initial botching and who then arranged the bullying?

The Prime Minister: I think that people outside the House are very critical of those who choose to use national defence secrets for their own personal gain.

Mr. Sims: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that President Reagan has now signed orders which will come into effect this weekend and which will increase substantially duties on gin and other EEC products? Will she use her best endeavours to persuade the Americans to approach these negotiations over trade problems with the EEC in a reasonable frame of mind and avoid a trade war, which can only harm all the parties concerned?

The Prime Minister: We are greatly concerned about the matter which my hon. Friend has raised. We take the view that the enlargement of the European Community is something that benefits the United States as well, and is rather more than a trade matter. So we have protested very vigorously against the measures that the United States proposes and will continue to negotiate with it on this and other trading matters. I agree with my hon. Friend that if we go into a measure of protectionism now there is no telling where it may end.

Mr. Robin Cook: Has the Prime Minister been notified that yesterday police removed correspondence to Duncan Campbell from a senior member of her Government? Has

she been further advised that the correspondence makes it clear that the senior member of her Government supplied information for the series "The Secret Society", met Duncan Campbell to discuss it and was willing to appear in one of the programmes? In view of her strictures against Duncan Campbell and the New Statesman, does she not think that the House is entitled to know the name of that senior member of her Government, who only last autumn took such a markedly different attitude to both of them?

The Prime Minister: The police have used powers which they have under the appropriate and proper authorities. Any information that they have obtained is a matter for them and for any prosecuting authorities.

Mr. Galley: Will my right hon. Friend ask her right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to lay a report before Parliament setting out the likely employment consequences if Her Majesty's Government were to adopt a policy of a minimum national wage of £80 a week, control of inward investment and other policies espoused by the Labour party? Will she confirm that the likely outcome would be a million more jobs lost?

The Prime Minister: If these policies were to be followed, and if we added to them the phasing out of all civilian nuclear power and the removal of all American nuclear bases, the result would be very much higher unemployment in this country than we now have.

Mr. George: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. George: In the light of the regrettable lapses as regards security and the intelligence services, is this not the wrong time for the Government to be considering booting out the Ministry of Defence policemen guarding MI5 and MI6 headquarters? Is this not the ultimate idiocy in privatisation? Will the Prime Minister call for the files and see if these proposals can be conveniently shelved?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we do not discuss these matters in the House.

Mr. Hayes: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hayes: Will my right hon. Friend advise Her Majesty to arrange an urgent and important meeting with the Leader of the Opposition so that he can explain his recent eccentric behaviour in saying on one day that he would not talk to Sinn Fein and, on the next, sending his Northern Ireland spokesman to speak to them? Does this not smell of hypocrisy?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, we take the view that Ministers do not talk to Sinn Fein. What the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition does is a matter for him.

Mr. Boyes: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Boyes: Is it not a fact that the Government bungled the matter last week? Is The Guardian not correct in its editorial when it suggests that the Prime Minister is now trying to cover her embarrassment
by increasingly dubious and reckless means"?
Is that not a ridiculous way for the Government to behave? Would the Prime Minister like to comment on the increasing press and media criticism of her reckless, dubious, bungling ways?

The Prime Minister: The action of the Government prevented the showing of the film, or the BBC agreed not to show the film. The trouble has arisen because of Left-wing organs like the New Statesman and people anxious to ferret out the secrets of national security in order to sell them either for personal gain or some kind of personal notoriety.

Mrs. Clwyd: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27th January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Clwyd: In view of the detailed information on satellites in a book entitled The Ties That Bind, published in 1985 by Allen and Unwin — far more detailed information than anything Mr. Duncan Campbell revealed either in his film or articles—why has the Prime Minister decided not to prosecute the authors of this book?

The Prime Minister: Matters of prosecution are for the prosecuting authorities, not for politicians. They never have been and never are. With regard to the recent matter, may I add to what was said in the House the other day. One breach or threatened breach will not justify a further breach.

Mr. Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Arising out of questions?

Mr. Bruce: It will be.

Mr. Speaker: It must be a point of order that I can answer, not a continuation of Question Time.

Mr. George: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The role of the Ministry of Defence police is apparently not to be discussed in this House. Can the Prime Minister tell me where the debate on the Ministry of Defence—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Prime Minister's Questions are at an end.

Mr. Nicholls: On a point of order arising out of questions last Thursday.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot take that now.

Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, on an intervention that occurred yesterday.

Mr. Speaker: I shall take it later on.

Mr. Caborn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Arising out of questions today?

Mr. Caborn: Yes. Can you inform the House, in the light of the Prime Minister's earlier answers, whether debate will be ruled out of order on proceedings on the Ministry of Defence Police Bill [Lords], on Wednesday, because that was the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George)? If so, that will therefore be ruled out of order.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can raise what he likes in debate, but the Prime Minister's Question Time is at an end.

Royal Dockyards

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Younger): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the Royal dockyards. As the House will recall, I announced on 4 December that I was satisfied that there now existed the basis for an advantageous contract to be placed for the future operation of Rosyth dockyard with Babcock Thorn Ltd.
I made that announcement some 21 months after my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Defence first published his consultative document outlining plans for the future operation of the dockyards. Throughout that time we have provided this House and the trade unions representing the dockyard work force with a great deal of information on our proposals, including material on the options for the future management of the dockyards and on our preferred contractors. My noble and hon. Friends and I have been personally involved in discussions with the unions most concerned.
The trade unions continue to favour the option involving minimum change, with the dockyards remaining in the Civil Service under a system of trading funds. I have considered very carefully what the unions have said and I have explained to them why, in the Government's view, a dockyard trading fund is unlikely to secure either the improvements in efficiency we seek for the Royal Navy and the dockyards, or to compete as successfully as a commercial company for commercial and naval work.
I am, of course, fully aware of my obligations under the Dockyard Services Act 1986 to inform and consult the trade unions. I have always said that I would take final decisions only when I was satisfied that I had complied with such duties as the Act imposed on me. I am satisfied that I can take a final decision in respect of Rosyth dockyard and have today authorised the signature of a term contract for the future operation of that dockyard from 6 April 1987, with Babcock Thorn Ltd.; I have in addition authorised the signature of a service contract with Babcock Thorn Ltd. to cover its operations in the dockyard from now until vestng day; during this period, the management of the dockyard will remain the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence.
As the House knows, I announced on 20 January that Devonport Management Limited was our preferred contractor for Devonport dockyard. I have invited the trade unions to meet me on 13 February, so that I may hear their views on this. Only when I have carefully considered any such views will I take a final decision on the future operation of Devonport dockyard.

Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: The Secretary of State will be aware that his statement comes as no surprise to us, because since 1985 we have had a series of statements indicating preferred options and so far none of them has been changed as a result of consultations with the trade unions. Furthermore, the statement's dismissal of trading funds is a gross oversimplification of the unions' case for this option. Is not the Secretary of State aware that they are prepared for a wide-ranging set of changes and that they seek to co-operate with management to secure increases in efficiency and cost savings?
However, the Secretary of State will also be aware that there is evidence of indecent haste on his part in the

manner that he is now rushing into signing a service contract to get Babcock Thorn into the yard as quickly as possible. In regard to the further contract starting on 6 April, can the Secretary of State tell us how long it is for? Is it to be for seven years, as was originally thought? He did not mention that in the statement. Does he agree that his decision, with the sham consultation, will only serve to exacerbate the resentment that is felt by the work force in Rosyth at the proposed loss of at least 1,200 jobs in the near future? In the eyes of the unions, this is simply an alien management coming in to do the Government's dirty work.
In his further discussions with the work force at Plymouth, Devonport, will the right hon. Gentleman examine seriously the revelations that have been appearing in The Independent and the Western Morning Post about the links of Brown and Root with Libya, which were such an embarrassment to the American Government that they required the company to remove that part of its operation from the United States. Secondly, in respect of Brown and Root, will the right hon. Gentleman examine the revelations that have come to light concerning the penalties it has had to pay because of poor quality work in some major contracts?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that in the view of my right hon. and hon. Friends these contracts can be severed by legislation, and that they will be as soon as there is a change of Government so that we can secure happy and harmonious service from these workpeople to the nation and to the fleet, as happened for centuries in the past?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for one thing, that in his opening remarks he made it clear that this was no surprise to him, and to the House, I suppose. That I take as a clear recognition, that, whatever else is right, the consultation process must have been extremely effective. Secondly, it certainly is the case that the trade unions have made it clear that there is quite a considerable area of agreement between ourselves and them. For instance, they agree thoroughly that the present system has to be changed and they are prepared to co-operate in discussing what changes are best. As I said in my statement, they still maintain their view that a trading fund would be the best option.
I was puzzled by the hon. Gentleman's reference to indecent haste, considering that I was in a position, and made it clear that I was as long ago as 4 December, to sign a contract with Babcock Thorn for Rosyth but deliberately held that back in order to ensure that the maximum opportunity was given for all concerned to consult me about it before making such a decision.
I do not think that indecent haste has any relevance to that.
I confirm that the contract that we are signing today will be for seven years, as suggested. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Devonport and I want to make it clear that the suggestion of Brown and Root being involved is under consideration. I have made no final decision on that. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Brown and Root has made it clear that there will be no connection whatever between its operation in Libya and that in Devonport, should the company receive the contract. The company has made it clear that there will be no connection of any kind in that regard.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the loss of jobs. I want to make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that I made it clear to the unions that I expect that, with commercial management, the likely loss of jobs will be no greater and will possibly be somewhat less than it would be under any other option. Under any form of organisation, even a trading fund or a Government owned public limited company, there is no altering the fact that the likely work load of the dockyard in years to come will mean some loss of jobs. We hope to make that the minimum loss of jobs, and we believe that commercial management will ensure that it is the minimum.
I want to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention, if this is necessary, to the fact that the only real threat to the substantial number of jobs in Rosyth dockyard would be the cancellation of the Trident programme, which would immediately put at risk at least 2,000 people employed at Rosyth. I know that the employees appreciate that.

Miss Janet Fookes: Would my right hon. Friend confirm that the project undertaken by Brown and Root in Libya was a humanitarian civil project to bring much-needed water from a desert area to the coastal project? I would have thought that that would be very interesting to those who support the Third world.

Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. Friend that there is no connection whatever in that matter. I repeat that Brown and Root has confirmed that in no circumstances will any Libyan nationals be allowed access to the Colliers Wood offices from which the dockyard contract would be operated. Brown and Root has also confirmed that the Devonport dockyard and the Libyan irrigation projects will be dealt with entirely separately. I hope that that will reassure my hon. Friend.

Dr. David Owen: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that many people, especially those closely associated with the Navy, believe that the House will come to regret vesting in a private monopoly the safeguarding and refitting of this country's nuclear deterrent? Will the Secretary of State nevertheless, despite making this decision for agency management in Rosyth, which I and many others regret, at least express a readiness to consider the Government-owned option for Devonport dockyard? Will he realise that the trade unions, although preferring the other option, would far prefer a Government-owned plc for Devonport dockyard to agency management?

Mr. Younger: I fully appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's point. I can confirm that the trade unions and local representatives who saw me recently confirmed that, while they would prefer to have a trading fund, as a fallback position they would be prepared to work along with a Government-owned plc as an alternative. I can give an undertaking to the right hon. Gentleman that I do not intend to make a firm decision on this until I have had further information about the views of those concerned. At this stage, it remains open either for a Government-owned plc or for commercial management at Devonport.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the companies concerned are highly respected in Scotland, that they are noted for their management skills and that they will be appreciated by the people working at Rosyth when they realise that they are being managed effectively? Does he also agree that in the

days when the Vulcan and V force were deterrents, the aircraft were serviced in part by civil contractors? There is nothing new in that practice.

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is correct in his last point. There is nothing new in the practice of major defence equipment being provided under contract from private enterprise. The vast majority takes place in that way and is successfully carried out.
I also agree that Babcock's is an extremely well respected company in Scotland and enjoys very good relations with its work force. My consideration of this has always been to ensure that there is the best possible chance of the dockyard not only being well managed but having the best chance of receiving extra work from private sources to help the redundancy position. Today's decision makes that more likely rather than less.

Mr. Gordon Brown: Will the Secretary of State confirm that this decision, which no other comparable country, including America, would contemplate, has been accurately described by one of his officials as the high-risk option for our national defences and national security? Will he further confirm that, as a result of his announcement, up to 1,000 jobs will be written off in Rosyth in Scotland? Will he explain why he will sacrifice any interest, whether it be the interest of the work force or the interests of Britain, in pursuit of the Government's privatisation dogma?

Mr. Younger: That all sounds very good, but it does not accord with the facts. The hon. Gentleman speaks about the axing of 1,000 jobs. I stress to him that that regrettable situation would arise under whatever form of management is chosen for the dockyard. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman is the representative of the Opposition and I remind him yet again that the only real threat is the 2,000-plus jobs that would go immediately if the Trident programme were to be destroyed by the Opposition. That is the matter that the people of Rosyth are most worried about, and they are right.

Mr. Tony Speller: Is my right hon. Friend convinced that, in time of emergency, let alone in time of war, the control exercised over a dockyard operation would in any sense be as efficient under a private company as it would be under the control of the Government?

Mr. Younger: In every respect it can be as efficient. There is nothing new about it, because it is done in many other spheres of defence procurement, both in war and in peace. I have every confidence that the control which we shall exercise over the contractors not only in the form of the Government's share and so on but in other ways will ensure that these facilities will remain available to the nation in times of need. The facilities will be as good as, and I hope better than, they have been in the past.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Can we get some assurances from the Secretary of State about the new or projected management structure for Rosyth? Who will be in charge of the Rosyth dockyard? Will it be Mr. Smith of Babcock Thorn, or will it be Rear-Admiral Burgess? What assurances do we have about the technology for the new PWR that is likely to go into Rosyth in terms of an SSBN or an SSN? How can we ensure that that technology will not leak to Babcock Thorn, which might be highly interested in new developments in relation to Sizewell?

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman asks about management. I can assure him that Babcock Thorn fully shares our concern that the skills and experience of those who are at present responsible for running the Rosyth dockyard should not be lost to its future operation. A measure of continuity over the period of change ahead must also be an important consideration in selecting senior managers to run the dockyard after vesting day. Although discussions between the contractor and existing senior management are not yet fully complete and the final management plot cannot therefore be made public, I am satisfied that the arrangements for the future will meet our requirements in this vital area. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that any secret matter in the Rosyth dockyard will be as secure in future as it is today.

Mr. James Couchman: Will my right hon. Friend say what plans he has for the storage and disposal of low and intermediate radioactive waste from the refuelling and refitting of SSNs at Devonport should commercial management take over there? Will he reassure my constituents in Gillingham that he has no intention of transferring such waste to the Royal Navy facility at the former naval dockyard in Chatham?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern about this matter, but, as he knows, we never comment upon the methods of transport of such materials. I can assure him that the greatest care is taken in all such matters and, in any case, the safety measures and the care taken will not in any way be adversely affected by the change that I have announced.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: What information and what commitments has the Secretary of State given the new management of the dockyards about a future work programme? Has he been more candid with the privatised dockyard management than the Government ever were with the new owners of the privatised warship yards?

Mr. Younger: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have had discussions with the proposed contractors about the likely work load at the dockyard and they have made their calculations based on that. They hope that, under their management, it may not be necessary to have as many

redundancies as were previously announced as likely some weeks ago. Although there can be no guarantee of that, it is a somewhat hopeful sign. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman as about information on other contractors. We have been extremely free with giving information to Swan Hunter, which is the hon. Gentleman's constituency interest—and rightly, because it is a valued contractor.

Mr. Frank Cook: The Secretary of State will already be aware of my coming inquiry, as during business questions last Thursday the Leader of the House gave an assurance that he would acquaint him with it. Therefore, he will be aware of my question. What truth is there in the reports that Brown and Root refused to accept responsibility for the irradiated materials stored at Devonport? Without disclosing any official secret, will the Secretary of State tell the House what broad arrangements will be made to take care of the material because of that refusal?

Mr. Younger: Again, I cannot comment directly on the precise methods or the routes for transporting such material. I make it clear that every possible safety measure has been taken up to now and will continue to be taken in the future under the new form of management at Rosyth dockyard. That is the reassurance that I think the hon. Gentleman seeks.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: What sort of arguments would convince the Secretary of State in favour of a Government-owned plc or trading fund at Devonport as against privatised management? Of what must he be convinced before he will change his mind in favour of the arguments being deployed by the unions, because they will have to deploy them at the meeting on the 13th.

Mr. Younger: I wish to have the fullest expression of the views of the unions and others involved before I come to a final decision, but what I hope and intend to take into account principally in making my final decision is which of these alternative methods is likely to bring the most outside work into the dockyards while allowing them to do an efficient job with the work they have. Any of these alternatives will be preferred, if I believe that it is the most likely to produce more work for those in the dockyard.

Houses (Radon Levels)

The Minister for Environment, Countryside and Planning (Mr. William Waldegrave): With permission, Mr. Speaker I wish to make a statement about measures to deal with the problems of naturally occuring radon gas in houses in some areas of the country.
Radon 222 is a naturally occurring radioactive gas which comes out of the ground, particularly in and around areas of igneous rock such as granite. In the open air it is dispersed, but concentrations can build up in buildings. The gas decays into minute solid particles which, if breathed in, can be deposited on the surface of the lungs. It has been known for a long time that occupational exposure to radon in uranium mines is associated with an increased incidence of lung cancer. The potential problem of radon in houses was recognised in the 1970s, following research in Sweden. The issue was highlighted in the United Kingdom by the 10th report of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution in 1984.
In our response to that report, we stated that we would consider the need to take action once we had received advice from the National Radiological Protection Board based on work it already had in hand. The NRPB has now completed its work on the identification of areas of higher than average radon. The board has also considered the dose levels above which remedial action should be taken and has submitted its findings and recommendations. I have arranged for copies of its advice, along with copies of the advice which the Government have received from the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment, to be placed in the Library of the House.
Both the NRPB and COMARE have advised that the available evidence strongly suggests that exposure to radon gas increases the risk of lung cancer. The risk increases the higher the level of radon and the longer the exposure continues. They therefore recommend that action should he taken to reduce the doses in existing dwellings with the greatest concentrations and to limit exposure in dwellings to he built in the future.
The NRPB and COMARE have made recommendations, which we accept, about levels of radon above which precautionary action is advisable. The figures are 20 mSv per annum as an action level in existing houses, with 5 mSv per annum as the design level for new houses. These levels will be kept under review in the light of any further evidence that emerges about the effects of radon on health, on which there will be further work.
The Government intend to tackle in three ways the problem of identifying houses where such action is needed. First, the NRPB estimates that there are some 20,000 existing houses with radon concentrations high enough to give rise to doses of 20 mSv or more and that remedial action should be taken on these in due course. Most are likely to be located in Devon and Cornwall. To identify the houses with the highest levels, the Government are funding a substantial survey by the NRPB. This survey will take about two years, as measurements are needed over a relatively long period to obtain an accurate estimate of radon concentration. Secondly, so that people who live where radon concentrations might be above or near the action level can find out the radon concentration in their houses even it' they are not within the scope of the NRPB survey, the NRPB will be arranging a measurement service

at no cost to those concerned. Thirdly, in the remainder of the country, we judge that there is no need for special action and measurements will be made only at the expense of those who demand them. My Department is producing a leaflet, which will be made widely available in areas likely to have high radon concentrations. This will give full details of this service and other relevant advice to householders.
I want to stress that the risks from radon are assessed in terms of life-time exposure. There is therefore no need for drastic immediate measures to reduce levels. It is a matter of record that, in Devon and Cornwall, where radon levels tend to be higher than average, the death rate from lung cancer is lower than in many other parts of the country. The first step is to obtain an accurate measurement of the situation, so that the need for any remedial measurements can be properly assessed. This may take up to a year per house.
The responsibility for remedial measures in houses must rest with the house owner or the landlord in the case of both public and private rented accommodation. The Government are prepared to consider offering financial assistance towards the costs of remedial work to the most needy owner-occupiers.
Research work has already been undertaken both in this country and elsewhere on the type of remedial measures that may be appropriate, but the movement of radon gas into and within buildings is complex. Considerable further work is required. The Government intend to fund a two-year research programme on remedial and preventive measures to be undertaken by the Building Research Establishment. During the course of this programme, BRE will produce guidance notes, and these will be added to as we learn more.
For the future, we will make changes to the building regulations aimed at preventing the problem from occurring in new houses. We propose to provide guidance on practical measures which builders in particular areas may need to take.
We shall remain in close touch with work done abroad on this problem. Meanwhile, the measures that I have outlined demonstrate that we are taking the necessary steps to identify the extent of the problem, and to ensure that people in affected areas know what to do about it.

Dr. David Clark: The Minister has failed to outline the seriousness of the problem of radon, which was highlighted most recently in the report of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution in 1984, as the Minister said. As the House knows, radon is a colourless and odourless gas, which is particularly highly radioactive. For most people, radon presents a more serious risk than all other natural sources of radioactivity put together. It is so serious that the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States has estimated that between 10,000 and 20,000 deaths per year due to lung cancer are caused by radon. It is the second largest cause of lung cancer in the United States, following smoking. That is the seriousness of the problem that we are facing.
The Minister has proposed some limits, such as the limit of 20 mSv for established dwellings and 5 mSv for new dwellings. Why did he come to those precise figures? What were the figures applicable in the United States, and what are the figures applicable in Sweden, where a great deal of the research work has been done? I emphasise the point, because it is crucial that the House realises that the


figure of 20 mSv a year is 14 times the average dosage of a worker in a nuclear installation and 1,000 times the dosage of a chest X-ray. Why was the figure 20 mSv chosen, when I was led to understand that the figure of 16 mSv was much more acceptable?
The Minister referred almost entirely to domiciliary buildings. Has he any proposals for places of work or any intentions for the mining industry? He also referred to the survey by the National Radiological Protection Board of parts of Devon and Cornwall. What are the boundaries of that survey?
If I may take that a stage further, I understand that in the map compiled by the NRPB it showed other parts of the country as well as Devon and Cornwall which suffered from hot spots. Why has the Minister decided that the people who live in the Derbyshire and Yorkshire Pennines, which had a high measurement reading, should not be included in this survey? Do the people in the northern parts of the country not matter? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] Conservative Members may moan, but it is a fact, as scientific evidence has shown, that there are hot spots in the Derbyshire and Yorkshire Pennines. If the limits and levels are to be adhered to in Devon and Cornwall, the same figures should apply to other parts of the country. The Minister owes the House an answer.

Mr. Eric Forth: It is unbelievable.

Dr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman may well say that it is unbelievable, but this is a very serious matter.
The Minister referred to the levels of radar exposure and he outlined the cost of remedying this problem. As far as I can ascertain, the average cost will be £2,000 per house. Therefore, many householders in Devon and Corwall, on this suggestion, will have to find £2,000 per House. Has the Minister no plans to help the average householder? What are his plans to try to assist hard-pressed local authorities in Devon and Cornwall which are faced with this problem?
I think that the House has a right to expect answers to those simple questions because it is my contention that the Minister has played down the seriousness of this problem this afternoon.

Mr. Waldegrave: It seems to me that on this occasion the House has to walk a narrow tightrope. We have the information, but if it is wrongly deployed it will unnecessarily scare people.
It is possible for the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), in seeking to show that I am at fault, to score points off me in the House by trying to scare people. It is not worthy of the hon. Gentleman to try to scare people in Derbyshire when it is perfectly clear in my statement—it is all in the leaflet that the hon. Gentleman can read—that in some parts of the country, geologically, it is likely that it may be worth conducting a survey. We said in the statement that we shall pay for those surveys and they will be pari passu with other areas.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Sweden. At present, the limits in Sweden and Finland are higher than those that we are proposing. The hon. Gentleman said that we were, in some way, restricting the work of the NRPB. That is not true. The results of the scientific work done by the NRPB show that the "great majority" of the problem is

concentrated in one area. The reason for that concentration is geological and no other. We have not restricted its work in any way.
The hon. Gentleman said that the cost would be £2,000 per annum. That must be wildly—

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: He did not say that.

Hon. Members: Yes, he did.

Mr. Waldegrave: I will give him the benefit of the doubt. I do not believe that he meant per annum. It is not possible to say how much it will cost. In some cases, the cost will be less and in other cases more. We shall, within the next few months, have the advice of the BRE. Its work is already in hand, which will put the matter in its proper context.
The hon. Member for South Shields mentioned places of work and he will be aware that those areas are already controlled by regulations under the Health and Safety Executive.
I believe that this matter is worthy of the attention of the House; otherwise I would not be here today. I urge all hon. Members — they have always said that if the Government are wholly open with environmental data they will try to assess the data properly—to respond in a way that does not cause unnecessary panic. Work is in hand.
May I remind people and those hon. Members whose constituents are affected that the level of lung cancer in Devon and Cornwall is no higher than the national average and that indeed, in the south-west it is below national average.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the statement that he has made and the thoughtful way in which it was presented.
Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that, in terms of the granite substructures and granite buildings, a significant proportion in Devon fall within the planning authority of the Dartmoor national park rather than the district council? Therefore, it should be in close contact with the Government. The question arises of the conversion of old granite agricultural buildings into dwellings, where this problem may be encountered at an early stage. I ask him to remember, in consultation with his officials, that the national park committee is effectively the planning authority for a large proportion of Devon and of the area likely to be affected by this hazard on which the Government are taking action.

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend makes two fair points that I will take into account. Granite, as such, need not be the problem. Hon. Members may ask why the granite areas of Aberdeen, for example, are not mentioned in this statement. The reason is that the granite there is of a different geological type, being solid; it is fissured granite from which the gas may escape more easily.

Mr. Ron Davies: I put it to the Minister that his statement was not particularly precise. The Minister mentioned only Devon and Cornwall. I resent his accusation that my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) was attempting to score points when he was seeking further information. Will the Minister confirm that other areas, in addition to the Pennines mentioned by my hon. Friend, could be affected? I am thinking particularly of North Wales, Cumbria and parts


of Scotland, where the geology is similar to the affected parts of Cornwall. Will the Minister give an undertaking that, when the survey is complete, he will make the findings public so that people will have a chance to evaluate the extent of the problem? Will he give an undertaking to review the statement and his comments about the cost? It seems grossly unfair that the people in Devon and Cornwall will have the cost of the survey met presumably by a central fund, whereas people living in the more marginal areas will have to meet the cost themselves?

Mr. Waldegrave: I fear that I still have not got the point across. Where there is a prima facie case for saying that the geology of an area might give rise to problems, the survey will be free wherever one lives.
The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for South Shields, made a point to which I did not respond—about why we have come up with these limits. They are based on the unanimous advice of the two principal independent advisory bodies—NRPB and COMA RE. It would be quite wrong for the hon. Gentleman or myself, as laymen, to invent new numbers to please ourselves.

Mr. David Mudd: I appreciate my hon. Friend's candid statement. I do not wish to inflame the panic of those affected or exacerbate the fears of others — especially worried people in my constituency — who will have noted my hon. Friend's remarks about exposure to radon increasing the risk of lung cancer. I have taken that on board. But what good news can my hon. Friend give to a 55-year-old unemployed tin miner who, having had difficulty paying his mortgage for no reason in his control, finds himself living near Troon and Beacon, beside one of the identified houses? What assurance can my hon. Friend give that person, who has had a life time of exposure to radon gas? Will his welfare be protected and, above all, will he get some satisfaction that remedial action is on the way—not at the end of two years or, if he is lucky, at the end of a cut-price instant survey by the NRPB? What immediate steps will be taken to remove his fears and worries and his potential suffering, which is growing by the day?

Mr. Waldegrave: The first thing is that my hon. Friend should join me in explaining this situation in as little emotive language as can be mustered.
It will make no difference whatsoever to the risks faced by the 55-year-old man who has always lived in the same place if the survey is delayed to ensure the action taken is correct? I urge my hon. Friend to advise his constituents—we will give all the help we can with all the resources of government to give such advice—that he does not go out of his way to tell people that they should take panic action when the additional risk is minimal. Many of his constituents will have lived there with lower chances of cancer, as the statistics show, than the rest of the country. That remains the fact.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: I welcome the Minister's statement, especially in relation to the free measurement. Given that it occurs capriciously and not across the whole country, will he assist local authorities, as the public landlord, especially in areas where there is a higher incidence, such as in the constituency of my late colleague in Truro. I understand that in an area called Trerace in St. Stephen, pregnant women are advised to move out because of the risk of miscarriage. Will he

continue the research into the subject? Will he look at Professor Emlin's assertion that radon can emanate from coal ash, thus suggesting a far wider incidence around the country than just from granite? Will he study Professor Stein's view that there is a possible way of prevention through chemical absorption? Will he maintain the research into that, which may well produce some results?

Mr. Waldegrave: On the latter point, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be continuing research sponsored by the Department of the Environment, the DHSS and the NRPB. I am sure that we must discuss the scale of the problem and the cost of the remedial action with the local authorities. I must say to the hon. Gentleman and to my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd) that we must emphasise to those who may be in real difficulty that we do not have a closed mind about bringing help to those in need who may have to spend money to deal with the matter in due course.

Mr. David Harris: I congratulate my hon. Friend on having the courage to make a statement to the House. Will he please guard against the obvious danger that unnecessary panic may be spread among people in Cornwall, especially — I am sorry to say this — in the light of the initial reaction from the Opposition? Will he bring as much inforation to the public as possible on a continuing basis? Will he make sure that those responsible press ahead with all speed with further monitoring' Will he warn people to be on their guard against unscrupulous contractors who might want to rush in and try to gull people into ordering all sorts of bogus equipment and carrying out all sorts of inefficient work to deal with the problem?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend's points are absolutely right. I should like to endorse what he said about bogus contractors. He, I and others who will be trying to address the media in the south-west should get the message across clearly: if somebody turns up on the doorstep in the next few weeks saying, "Well, squire, I've got a way to cure the old radon problem," he should he sent packing. Anyone who has any doubt about this matter should get in touch with the NRPB. The address is in the leaflets that we will be distributing. They should get in touch with my Department or with the DHSS if there is further doubt. The advice will be there. We have started to deal with the problem on the principle of openness that we are trying to establish in the environmental area. That is the only way forward, and we will continue in that style.

Mr. Allen McKay: Will the Minister confirm, allowing for the fact that it is the early stage of deliberations, that finance will be available to local government if necessary and to private tenants or owner-occupiers? On the distribution of information, will he take into account the fact that some of the cottages may be holiday cottages, either bought or intended to be sold, and that the information should be given out accordingly?

Mr. Waldegrave: The last point is a sound one. However, if the cottages are not occupied throughout the year, the effective dose will be much lower. We have said that we will look at support for needy owner-occupiers and I have no doubt that the councils most affected will want to discuss their housing investment programme allocation to see whether there is a need for adjustment.

Sir Trevor Skeet: Will the Minister confirm that double glazing is inclined to increase the concentration of thoron and radon gas due to the absence of any leaks of air into the room? Will he give any figures that he might have as to the number of deaths in the United Kingdom that can be attributed to that source, and will he confirm that the amount of radiation emitted from nuclear power stations is quite small compared with the amount of radon radiation that occurs in extensive parts of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Waldegrave: On my hon. Friend's first point, I do not want to start giving ad hoc advice from the Dispatch Box today. It is better to await the systematic professional advice from the Building Research Establishment. My hon. Friend's second point was quite right. Eighty-seven per cent. of the average exposure of our citizens to radiation comes from natural sources, 32 per cent. comes from radon gas and 0·1 per cent. is from discharges from the nuclear industry. It is worth keeping those things in proportion.

Mr. Frank Cook: I welcome the statement made by the Minister which is made with some justification. On 1 December 1986, I tabled early-day motion 211 which made specific reference to these matters.
[That this House notes that, according to the National Radiological Protection Board, 32 per cent. of radiation exposure to the average United Kingdom citizen is due to naturally occurring radon gas; that radon levels vary widely between different parts of the United Kingdom; that concentrations of radon gas in some houses can give rise to radiation exposures in excess of the annual maximum permissible levels for a member of the public and that, in extreme cases, can lead to exposures that exceed occupational dose limits for radiation workers; notes also that any exposure to radiation will increase the risk of cancer, genetic damage and possibly other health effects to exposed people; that radiation protection requires that all radiation exposures are kept as low as reasonably practicable; and therefore calls on Her Majesty's Government to (a) set standards for maximum permissible radon gas concentrations in all United Kingdom buildings, (b) introduce building regulations to require that all new buildings prevent, as far as is possible, the entry of radon gas and (c) set up a national programme to reduce radon gas concentrations in all existing houses and public and private buildings to below this maximum permissible level.]
The three things I called for in that early-day motion have been met in some measure today. In response to the comments about opposition from Labour Benches, I must say that the only people who signed that early-day motion were members of the parliamentary Labour party.
The Minister said that the standards in Finland and Sweden are, to use his word, higher. There can be confusion. In these regulations we are talking about 20 mSv for old dwellings and 5 mSv for new dwellings. Will the Minister give a figure for old and new dwellings in Finland and Sweden so that we know whether he means more than 20 mSv or less or more than 5 mSv or less?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am sorry that convention prevented me from signing his early-day motion. I do not want to attach myself to them too closely, because I have no doubt that there may be revisions abroad, as there may be here if we learn more,

but the present figures are 40 mSv for existing buildings and 10 mSv for new buildings. Those figures may be altered in the future.

Mr. Robert Adley: Does my hon. Friend recall the written answer he gave on 7 June 1985 about the levels of gamma radiation dose rates? Will he confirm that none of the counties mentioned by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), is listed in the 20 places with the highest levels in England and Wales? Therefore, it might be advantageous if, before he came to the House, he did a little more homework.
After my hon. Friend's written answer to me, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), who is as ever assiduously in his place, provided me with a further answer that compared statistically, from the NRPB figures, the level of existing radiation dose rates in establishments where there are nuclear installations in this country. Every one was way below the figures given for naturally existing radiation dose rates. Is he aware that at Sellafield there is about one third the level of Dartmoor and at Winfrith in Dorset about one eighth? Will he do everything he can to ensure that the anti-nuclear brigade do not try to spread alarm when there is no justification for linking the presence of radon gas with nuclear installations?

Mr. Waldegrave: Even the most hardened campaigner would be hard put to blame Lord Marshall for the presence of radon gas in the crust of the earth, but someone may try. My hon. Friend accused me of not having done my homework—

Mr. Adley: Not you.

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend accused the hon. Member for South Shields of not doing his homework. My hon. Friend is entirely right. I was going to add a gloss by saying that we are interested in alpha radiation because, using the jargon, it is the daughters of radon, the decayed products of radon — solid particles that emit alpha radiation that can he ingested into the lungs—that cause the problems.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: If I understood my hon. Friend correctly, he referred to the risk being calculated on the basis of a lifetime's exposure. Bearing in mind that that would suggest that somebody would have to be living in a house from their birth to their death, rarely going out and living in a badly ventilated house, does that not put things in context and show how infinitesimal the risk is? Can my hon. Friend relate the degree of radioactivity that can be expected to the dose that might be received simply by watching a television set?

Mr. Waldegrave: I do not have the television figure in my mind. However, in spite of the presence beside me of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, I have another dose figure in my mind; that is the comparison with the average smoker's increased risk of lung cancer. We are talking about levels in the affected areas of about fifty times less than the self-inflicted risks of the average smoker.

Mr. Robert Hicks: Can my hon. Friend give a straightforward assurance, both to the House and to the nation, that what he has said this


afternoon should not have an adverse effect on the tourist industry of Devon and Cornwall, or any other individual who wishes to visit the west country?

Mr. Waldegrave: I can give that assurance with absolute certainty. In terms of the comparative risk of increased radiation, for example, of going abroad in an aeroplane—one has a brief dose of radiation if one flies in an aeroplane — the risks are not worth worrying about for the tourist visitor to the south-west.

British Telecom (Dispute)

Mr. Derek Conway: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, for the purpose of discussing under Standing Order No. 20, a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the British Telecom dispute and the maintenance of emergency communications.
The House will be aware that the British Telecom dispute with its employees has now spread to the 110,000 engineers and today to 34,000 clerical staff. The point of urging a debate upon the House is not to question the role of the general secretary of the National Communications Union — a former Labour Member of Parliament and adviser to the Leader of the Opposition—or to wonder at his statement to the press that there must be a big confrontation in this matter; more importantly, it is so that the House can examine that which it approved in the Telecommunications Act 1984 part I, section 3 — the duties and responsibilities of the Secretary of State and the Director General of Telecommunications
to secure … all reasonable demands for . . . emergency services".
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be conscious of his duty to ensure that the emergency services prevail, so that the House will be assured that this is not a trade dispute within a private company, but has ramifications for the deliberations of the Chamber.
I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will accept that the acts of vandalism and sabotage which we read about at the weekend are not the acts of British Telecom employees. In my constituency, the exchange has been vandalised, but the local engineers are maintaining emergency services and are being co-operative with the management who are staffing the repair service centres. In London, 13 exchanges have had their locks glued and have had to be forcibly entered; telephones have been out of action in west Yorkshire, and cables have been cut in Newcastle upon Tyne. Those are not the acts of responsible trade unionists, but of Left-wing anarchists who tag on to trade disputes.
Parliament will wish to know what protection measures the Government plan for the centres of communication; whether any saboteurs have been arrested and charged by the police; and whether the Royal Signals Regiment is on standby should that ultimately be necessary.
Such a debate will give Her Majesty's Opposition an opportunity to denounce, with conviction, the Left-wing extremists who endanger the lives of the sick and elderly by their despicable and illegal sabotage of our vital communications system.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should
have urgent consideration, namely,
the British Telecom dispute and the maintenance of emergency communications.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the only decision that I have to take is whether to give the matter precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow. I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised as appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Mr. Bernard Ingham

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The point of order that I wish to put to you, Sir, arises out of an exchange at Question Time last Thursday, when the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) was questioning my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. In that exchange the hon. Gentleman referred to a telephone conversation which he alleged had taken place between Bernard Ingham and the office of the chairman of United Newspapers, which owns, among other newspapers, The Star. During the course of that exchange, the hon. Gentleman asked whether it was
a proper use of public funds for a civil servant such as Mr. Bernard Ingham to bribe, berate and blackmail that small section of the Fleet street press".
On a number of occasions, Mr. Speaker, you have said that hon. Members must be responsible for the remarks that they make in the House.
As I understand what is said in the 20th edition of "Erskine May", previous speakers have gone further than that in particular circumstances. Page 338 of the 20th edition says:
Where the facts are of sufficient moment the Speaker has required prima facie proof of their authenticity.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East is not given to inflammatory statements in the House, so the words that he used have more significance than they might normally have. It is inconceivable that one can imagine words more damaging than "bribe, berate and blackmail" about a civil servant and it would be difficult to imagine words that could be more dangerous and destructive when by implication, they have been applied to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
I ask you to say, Mr. Speaker, that these words are so gross and offensive that the hon. Gentleman should be asked to either substantiate them or withdraw them.

Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that Mr. David Stevens who was alluded to by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), explicitly denied that he had had any contact with Mr. Bernard Ingham or 10 Downing street.
What possibility does someone such as Mr. David Stevens have to clear his name, or implication in such a matter, when he is not a Member of the House? Is it not grossly unfair that someone of his standing in public life should be dragged into a matter such as this and not have the opportunity to deny it, except through a newspaper?

Mr. Kenneth Hind: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Page 338 of the 20th edition of "Erskine May" says that responsibility is placed on a Member asking a question to establish its factual basis. In the circumstances, The Star, which is referred to as the newspaper in question, has printed a denial under the heading "Abuse of Privilege". It says that the allegations were completely untrue.
In those circumstances, I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on whether the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) was abusing the privilege of the House in making the allegation that he did.

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I shall deal with one point at a time.
The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) gave notice of his point of order, so I start by saying that every hon. Member must take personal responsibility for what he says here and for naming people outside the House who have no recourse under parliamentary privilege.
The hon. Member has correctly stated the rule governing questions, that if a fact cited by a Member as a basis for his question is "of sufficient moment" he may be asked to produce prima facie proof of its authenticity.
But this matter arose out of a supplementary question, and it would by laying a heavy burden upon Mr. Speaker to expect him to judge, in an oral exchange between Members and a Minister, whether a particular fact was of sufficient moment to require prima facie proof of authenticity. However, since the hon. Gentleman has drawn my attention to the matter and has asked me for a ruling, having read the exchanges in the Official Report, and having noted what the Prime Minister said on the question I do not regard the matter as one in which I needed to intervene.

Business of the House

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there a time limit on the main business of the House? Many hon. Members are likely to to be involved because of the interests, rights and privileges that are at stake.
I have been informed that there is some talk of the debate ending at 7 pm. This is a House of Commons matter and I hope that it is clear that if hon. Members still wish to debate the matter at that time they will be able to do so because there should be no time limit to this most important debate.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may know that there was a motion on the Order Paper last night which was objected to, so the debate today may continue until 10 pm.

Hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order concerns the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) and I have given him notice that I intend to refer to him. Yesterday, the hon. Gentleman referred to leaflets which expressed views that no hon. Member, and few people outside, would either espouse or condone. He said:
Will my right hon. Friend, with the support of the Opposition Front Bench, not beseech local authorities that are financing that sort of literature to stop handing out the ratepayers' money for that purpose?"—[Official Report. 26 January 1987; Vol. 109, c. 24.]
As the hon. Gentleman is the parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation, it might be assumed that that information had been passed to him by the Police Federation or that, in turn, his views were endorsed or supported by the Police Federation.
I should like you to confirm two things, Mr. Speaker. The Home Secretary advised the hon. Gentleman that if he had any literature or any other sort of evidence to pass it to the police inquiry. Will you confirm, Mr. Speaker, that you, and through you, the Table Office, will accept questions from Members about evidence submitted to the police inquiry from the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds and others? Secondly, if, after reflecting upon what he said, he wished to withdraw his serious allegations against local authorities, would you confirm that the best way for him to do that would be to make an early personal statement?

Mr. Speaker: What the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) has said really follows what the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) said earlier. It is impossible for the Speaker to make a judgment in the Chamber during a supplementary question as to whether what has been said is accurate. That cannot be a matter for me; it must be a matter for the hon. Member concerned. With regard to tabling questions, I cannot rule on what is plainly a hypothetical matter. The hon. Gentleman must approach the Table Office on that.

Private Notice Questions

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you help the House to clear up a conundrum? As you know, under Standing Order No. 17(3), the only questions that can be asked after 3.30 pm are those which have not appeared on the Order Paper but which are, in your opinion, of an urgent character and relate either to matters of public importance or the arrangement of business. Did you accept any such questions on the morning of 21 January and, if so, in whose name was it put down?

Mr. Speaker: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is referring to; he is not being specific.

Mr. Marlow: I believe that on Wednesday morning something appeared on the annunciator to the effect that a private notice question had been accepted by your office. Can you say who put down that private notice question?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that private notice questions appear on the annunciator if they have been granted, but a Minister can, if he wishes, make a statement instead of answering a private notice question, and that is exactly what happened on that particular day.

Mr. Marlow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No. I do not think that I can add any more. That is a plain matter of fact.

Mr. Marlow: Who put down the private notice question which appeared on the annunciator?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should listen to what I said. It is for a Minister to make a statement in place of a private notice question if he so wishes.

Mr. Marlow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There can be nothing further to it.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order! There can be nothing further to it. I have stated the facts.

Mr. Marlow: You have not answered the question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I have answered the question.

Pensioners' Right to Fuel and Communications

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to ensure the supply of gas and electricity for pensioner households; to abolish standing charges for pensioner consumers for gas, electricity and water; and to abolish telephone rentals for pensioners.
This is the fourth time that I have introduced a Bill such as this, and a number of Bills on similar subjects have been introduced to the House by other hon. Members. On each occasion they have been opposed at a later stage or blocked by Conservative Members who do not have the guts to vote against such Bills at the first opportunity and who have been in correspondence with local pensioner organisations saying either that they agree with the Bill but cannot do anything about it, or that they profoundly disagree with the Bill but were not here when it was first proposed.
It is important to put the Bill in context. During the cold weather of the past few weeks the Government have given themselves enormous publicity by handing out £10 payments over two weeks to pensioner households to attempt to alleviate the severe hardship caused by the cold weather. However, every year every pensioner household has to pay four quarters of a gas standing charge of £8·90, and four quarters of an electricity standing charge of £8 Therefore, the £10 that has been paid to pensioner households is rather less than one sixth of standing charges taken over a year.
There is a great deal of evidence to show that, particularly since 1980, there has been a deliberate and steep increase in the price of gas, deliberately encouraged by the Government, partly to gain from the Gas Corporation levy, but also to make the Gas Corporation ready for privatisation — ready for the theft of that organisation from the public purse. That is one reason for those increases.
Anyone who thinks that those matters are trifling should note that since 1982 the Gas Corporation levy has been well over £2 billion. In 1982–83 it was £471 million in 1983–84, £522 million; in 1984–85, £500 million, and the latest figure is £520 million. That levy is, in effect, a tax on everyone's gas bill. The same applies to electricity and water. We are seeing the pauperisation of so many people in order to make those industries ready for privatisation.
In the past, there have been rebate schemes for standing charges. It is estimated that 21 per cent. of gas consumers and 11 per cent. of electricity consumers received some benefit , under those rebate schemes. However, the Government abolished those rebate schemes which meant that no one had to pay more than half his total bill as a standing charge. I have before me the bill of one of my constituents whose standing charge is about 95 per cent. of her bill for the summer quarter. We are witnessing taxation by poll tax methods of the lowest paid and smallest consumers in Britain. This is a prelude of what the Government intend to do in the future rates Bill for England and Wales. That is one reason why I strongly oppose a standing charge system.
The most serious matter is the treatment of Britain's elderly and their ability to warm their homes, cook their meals and live in some degree of decency. During the cold weather we saw the undoubted concern of millions of


people in Britain for the plight of the elderly. The problem is that their plight remains the same throughout the year when they have to try to meet their bills, not just during times of extreme cold weather.
Many doctors are reluctant to ascribe death to hypothermia on a death certificate. They will often put down many other causes, but seldom hypothermia. Yet during the first half of 1985, of all deaths in England and Wales, 363 were directly due to hypothermia and 655 were due to related causes. During the first half of 1986 the figures were 355 and 673 respectively. If a clear direction were given by the DHSS to medical officers of health that when they believe hypothermia to be the cause of death they should say so, those figures would be far higher.
Other countries treat their elderly far better than we do and do not go through our annual hypothermia epidemics. The Bill would not solve all the problems of death through hypothermia, and it would not solve all the problems of those who are unable to pay for their gas, electricity and water bills, or indeed their telephone rental, but it would go some small way towards recognising the plight of the elderly by ensuring the supply of those vital commodities.
Secondly, the Bill would abolish standing charges for gas, electricity and water. Thirdly, it would abolish telephone rentals for the elderly, for whom communication is a necessity, not a luxury. More important, it would prevent the Secretary of State from allowing a unit cost rise to pay for those items and make him pay for them out of the taxation on the gas and electricity bills of everybody else.
In the past, Opposition Members have drawn attention to the likely profits of the corporations involved. In its first full year of privatisation British Gas is expecting to make a profit of £1 billion, much of it from pensioners British Telecom's profit is expected to be over £2 billion.
The Bill is very important and merits a great deal of support. In the past, Conservative Members have not had the guts to vote against such Bills, although they have done everything possible to block them at a later stage. I hope that today those who oppose the Bill will have the courage to get up and say in public that they do not believe that pensioners should be better treated than the rest or the community as a way of combating the misery of death from hypothermia.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Miss Joan Maynard, Mr. Chris Smith, Miss Jo Richardson, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Bob Clay, Mr. Tony Benn, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Bill Michie and Mr. Robert N. Wareing.

PENSIONERS' RIGHT TO FUEL AND COMMUNICATIONS

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn accordingly presented a Bill to ensure the supply of gas and electricity for pensioner households; to abolish standing charges for pensioner consumers for gas, electricity and water; and to abolish telephone rentals for pensioners: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 3 April and to be printed. [Bill 56.]

High Court Injunction (Mr. Speaker's Order)

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raise this matter because it has been discussed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Having read the Standing Orders and, bearing in mind that today your position has been thrust — unwittingly, no doubt—into the cauldron of the political climate in respect of the motion, it crossed our minds whether, from a purely academic point of view, as the motion is somewhat critical of your conduct in respect of matters last week, and as this is not covered by the Standing Orders, you should take the Chair during the debate. I ask that as a simple academic question and to establish the facts.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the House would judge that the motion is critical of the action that I took. Indeed, the motion confirms my action. It is now up to the House to decide the way in which it wishes to proceed in the future. That is the only question before us today, and it is for the House to decide whether I did the right thing.

Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is pretty clear that we are having a debate because there are different points of view on whether what happened last week was suitable to all hon. Members. I have no doubt at all that, had there been unanimity last week, the debate would not be taking place today. The fact that there is a debate means that there are differing views on the issue. Therefore, to some extent, it is a question of your conduct in that respect, Mr. Speaker. It may be a minor matter to some hon. Members, but more important to others. My hon. Friends and I are trying only to establish the question of order. As there is no unanimity, should that procedure be followed?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will recollect that it was I who suggested that this matter should be put to the House. I must say to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that even if this had been a critical motion it would still have been right for the Speaker to be in the Chair.

Mr. James Callaghan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order that concerns your position and to seek an assurance from you. I apologise for not giving you notice but I did not read the motion or the amendment—both of which are defective—until I came into the Chamber.
The motion refers to the action of 22 January, but also to the subject of an injunction by the High Court. There is no mention here of security. This seems to me to be significant, because if the motion or the amendment were passed—the amendment is perhaps closer to the point of view that I want to put than is the motion—you—or a future Speaker—might feel guided by what will be a resolution of the House of Commons, and if any injunction is asked for in the High Court and granted, you will, on the basis of precedent, feel obliged to resist any discussion in the House of Commons.
I am disturbed by the motion as it stands, and if you, Mr. Speaker, were to regard it as a precedent, I feel that that would be a constitutional outrage. Therefore, on a point of order — I think that it is a genuine point of

order—I ask for an assurance that whatever decision is taken on the motion and on the amendment, you will not regard it as a precedent.

Mr. Tony Benn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The point made by my right hon. friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) has led me to believe that were we to pass either the motion or the amendment, we would be accepting a ruling which, whatever we may think, would be a precedent in "Erskine May", and would, therefore, bind future Parliaments.
The point that I should like to put to you, Mr. Speaker, is that, in matters as grave as this — the relationship between an injunction in the courts and the role of the Government and the House of Commons, which you are elected to defend — it is without precedent that the House should reach a view without the matter going to the Committee of Privileges. This Committee was set up to examine in great detail something that we appear to be handling as if it was a normal matter of inter-party controversy.
With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, would you accept a motion for the adjournment of the debate? If that were carried it would be open to the Leader of the House to put the matter to the Committee of Privileges, and for the House to return to it when the full constitutional implications had been considered.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I read the motion before us, it is not concerned with setting precedents about anything. In so far as it means what it says—it must be presumed to mean what it says — the motion is about one individual decision taken by Mr. Speaker on one particular occasion. What it does not do is to extend that into any general proposition. Therefore, I do not think that any assurance is necessary about precedents, because the motion is not open-ended. The motion is specific to one decision on one occasion. The words used in it merely enable the House to identify what the decision is which the House is debating.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is quite correct. The action that I took on 22 January is the matter that we are discussing this afternoon. I assure the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) that I have no intention of making this a blanket ruling. In any case, it was not a ruling but an instruction. It is a matter for debate and for the House to decide, and that is what I think the House should do. I have selected amendment (a) in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, and I have also selected amendment (h) in the name of the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins).

Mr. Neil Kinnock: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hear what you say, and I am certain that, apart from the general wisdom that comes from that Chair, your interpretion must in common sense be correct. It appears to me, although, as you know, I have not had any form of conversation with you on the subject, that what you did last Thursday was entirely acceptable, as our amendment suggests. Your decision was taken in particular circumstances.
If the House were at some juncture today to vote to continue a prohibition on the basis of an injunction that was sought and gained on Wednesday — which was


reflected in the decision which you were obliged to take in the circumstances on Thursday morning—for as long as the injunction remains in effect, would it not be the case that you could not have anticipated that outcome last Thursday, and would it not be an inhibition of your freedom of action and of the freedom of the House if the motion were accepted?

Mr. Speaker: As I read the right hon. Gentleman's amendment, that is exactly what it says. That is the amendment that I have selected.

Mr. James Callaghan: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to you for saying that you would not regard this as a precedent, but it does not necessarily follow that it will not be so regarded in the future. With respect to you, Sir—I try to respect your rulings in this matter — it seems that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) is on to a good point. This matter needs further detailed consideration by the Leader of the House and the Committee of Privileges. I therefore ask you whether you would be prepared to accept a motion, on which the House can decide, to adjourn the proceedings at the end of our debate, when the arguments have been adduced, so that further consideration can be given to the future procedures of the House.

Mr. Speaker: It is up to the House to decide whether to accept the motion, the Opposition amendment or, indeed. to add the further amendment. I am not responsible for motions that are put on the Order Paper. That is up to the House to decide.

Mr. Benn: Further to the point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Following what my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has said, I think you will appreciate that we are not anxious that the vote should be a reflection on a personal decision made by you, but we are afraid—I am very much afraid—that a decision to confirm, as the Government say, or to accept, as my right hon. Friend said, will entrench a precedent. You know very well, Mr. Speaker, that your predecessor Mr. Speaker Lenthall established the duty of Speakers to defend the House. When an attempt was made to arrest the fiveMembers, he said:
I have neither eyes to see, nor tongue to speak here, but as the House is pleased to direct me.
That created a precedent. From that day to this the House has looked to its Speaker to protect it from the Crown and the courts. My fear is that, because of the high controversy surrounding this one issue about defence, we may stumble into a precedent which would be undesirable.
None of us want to vote against you personally, Mr. Speaker, but we do not wish to put on the record a precedent that would bind future Parliaments. That is the issue. Will you accept a motion to adjourn the debate? The House has to determine it, but would you accept such a motion? Will the Leader of the House—as he is Chairman of the Committee of Privileges—say whether he would be ready to take on board an examination of the full implications of what we are to discuss today?

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. When I first read the motion, I confess that I also was a little disturbed at the thought that we might he rewriting our Standing Orders to make it impossible in future to discuss any matter that was the

subject of an injunction in the High Court. I was satisfied, however, on further consideration, and having looked up the authorities, that that is not at all what the motion suggests.
The motion arises because you, Mr. Speaker. rightly took it upon yourself to give the House a decision in a particular case. Perhaps the wording could have been improved, but the decision relates only to one action on one day and one case in respect of which one injunction was issued. There can be no doubt that we are dealing with a specific instance in which you used your authority pending consideration by the House. That would appear to be a normal use of your powers, and therefore it is quite unnecessarily suggested that this would be a precedent. If it were, it would have to be followed by an amendment to Standing Orders, and that is not the case.

Mr. Michael Foot: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I press the case to you again? It is certainly within your power, is it not, at some stage in the debate, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has suggested, to accept a motion for the adjournment of the debate? I should have thought that these circumstances were such that you should consider that. You may wish to do that later, but I should have thought that it would be possible to do that fairly early.
What is presented to the House is unique. What many of us fear—the more we discuss it, the deeper that fear will become—is that if the Government's motion or the Opposition amendment is carried a precedent will be set. Future Speakers in similar or reasonably similar circumstances to what occurred last week would lien be able to turn back to this occasion and say that the House discussed it, a vote was taken and that that should guide us.
Surely there has hardly ever been a case — I can hardly think of a precedent — when a matter of this nature has been brought before the House by the Government within a few days without it having been referred to the Committee of Privileges or the Committee on Procedure, which are the right places in which to consider it. It is wrong for the Government and the Leader of the House, who has responsibilities in this matter, to press the motion on the House in the face of these objections. I therefore hope that we will have your assistance, Mr. Speaker.
We could have the assistance of the Leader of the House. Having heard what has been said, he could say that he will not press the motion to a Division. That would solve the problem. If the Leader of the House does not take that course, I urge most strongly that you, Mr. Speaker, accept at some stage a motion proposing the adjournment of the debate so that the matter can be considered properly by the proper Committee.

Mr. Speaker: This is in no sense a party political matter. It is a matter of high constitutional importance and one for the whole House. The matter is for the House to decide. I think that we must see what explanations may be given from the Front Bench. [Interruption.] Order. I shall then reflect on what the right hon. Gentleman has said and take my decision.

Mr. Kinnock: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you have just said, the House has the power to decide which form of words on the Order Paper it will


accept. The problem arises on this occasion from the fact that the Government took a certain course of action, including an application to the High Court for an injunction against certain hon. Members. Both you and I, Mr. Speaker, in particular circumstances, made a specific response. As a consequence of that response, you counselled us on Thursday that it was for the House to decide.
A form of words has been chosen by the Government Front Bench which would effectively prolong the life and effect of an injunction taken in another court, and not in the High Court of Parliament. The consequence of that, as it is conceivable that Conservative Members could vote on partisan grounds, is that a motion is tabled which is a reflection on your decision last Thursday and, for reasons which are not entirely to do with constitutional niceties, but for partisan reasons of support for the Government — which are totally understandable — you will have created a precedent and prolonged the life of an injunction granted in another court. We might have an opportunity further to reflect on that, because that would not be the effect of the amendment.
In addition, I suggest that the Chair should emphasise that an injunction in another court cannot of itself apply to this High Court of Parliament, and that to continue the effect of an injunction sought by the Government in another court will be interpreted as breaching that essential convention, which is central to the constitution of this House of Commons, as both my right hon. Friends have pointed out.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: It is sometimes believed outside this House that the House is subject to no discipline whatever, neither that of the courts outside, nor that of its Members inside. It is essential that that view should never be supported in this House. The fact that no court outside can interdict this House from discussing something in no way removes from the House the power or the duty to control its own affairs and discipline its own affairs. What this motion offers the House the opportunity of doing is not submitting to the injunction or order of a court outside, but imposing voluntarily on itself a reasonable discipline in the national interest.
That is the question that will be before the House, and it is quite wrong to represent, either on a point of order or in substantial debate, that question as being tantamount to subjecting the House to injunctive processes from courts outside it.

Mr. Benn: Before you give your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank you for promising to consider the request that has been made. In order to clarify the matter, may I ask you to consider whether it would be possible for you to accept a manuscript amendment on the following lines at the end of the debate, or whenever you think appropriate:
That the debate be adjourned and Mr. Speaker's ruling of 22 January be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
If the Leader of the House were prepared to assent to his own Committee examining it, in view of the enormity of the issues raised, we could have a debate which would be an opportunity for Members to give their view before the Committee of Privileges meets. It would greatly help if the Leader of the House could indicate now his readiness to respond to that proposal.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): The motion, Mr. Speaker, has not been submitted without careful consideration as to its assisting our procedures and to validate the action that you were obliged to take last Thursday morning. I believe that it would be a service to the House if we proceeded to debate it in those terms.
As to the other considerations mentioned by the right hon. Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callagham) and for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), it was open to them to put down an amendment to secure what they are now seeking to achieve.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to prolong the matter, but could you explain to me precisely what the Government motion means? As I understand it, if we take out "on 22 January" we establish a general precedent, namely, that Mr. Speaker has the power to close rooms during the duration of any High Court injunction, whether sought by the Government, by a private citizen, or by anyone who felt that his rights were being aggrieved by a matter being discussed in Parliament before the subject of the injunction had been considered, or indeed by someone seeking to secure an injunction to prevent a matter being discussed in the House in such circumstances as to avoid justice being done and the people knowing about it.
It seems to me that a future Speaker, looking at this resolution—even bearing in mind what you have said, Mr. Speaker—could interpret it as a general power in Mr. Speaker to close rooms pending an injunction.

Mr. Speaker: The House knows that that is not my intention. The House knows that what I did on Thursday of last week was to suggest that the matter be put to the House for its decision. I say again that this is in no sense a party political matter. The Government have put down their motion and the Leader of the Opposition has put down his amendment, which, it seems to me, states exactly what he said at the Dispatch Box a few moments ago, that the House takes out from "the House" to the end and substitutes entirely different words. If the House votes for that—and it is up to the House—that would be the position.
As for the manuscript amendment, if the right hon. Gentleman will submit it to me in writing I shall consider that proposition.

Mr. James Callaghan: Just one more word, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the House says that we could have put down amendments. As far as I am concerned, this motion did not appear on the Order Paper until today.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: It was in the "No" Lobby yesterday afternoon.

Mr. Callaghan: It did not appear on the Order Paper until this morning. If some people saw the motion beforehand, that is not conveying it to the House of Commons. The proper way to convey it to the House of Commons is through the Order Paper of the House. So, while I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for saying that you will not regard this motion as in any way a precedent, I hope that you will also take into account in your consideration the fact that this motion did not appear until this morning and will bear that in mind when condidering whether to accept a manuscript amendment.

Mr. Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I am not sure that it helps, but I will take it.

Mr. Leigh: As my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) has said, the motion was in full view. I myself put down an amendment to it, and I am simply a Back Bencher. Surely the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) could have done the same?

Mr. Speaker: It is the fact that the motion was tabled yesterday and appeared on the Order Paper this morning. I will, therefore, consider the manuscript amendment, as I have already said.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I beg to move,
That this House confirms the order of Mr. Speaker on 22nd January prohibiting the use of any room under the control of the House of Commons for the showing of a film, or the playing of a sound track thereof, which was the subject of an injunction by the High Court; and continues that prohibition in force so long as the injunction remains in effect.
As the title, and indeed the motion, make clear, our debate this afternoon arises from your decision, Mr. Speaker, on Thursday 22 January that no room under the control of this House be used to show the film which had been the subject of a High Court injunction the previous day. You received support from both sides of the House for that decision, but you made it clear that you had taken that action in order that nothing should
prejudice the position until the House itself had had an opportunity to discuss the matter." — [Official Report, 22 January 1987; Vol. 108, c. 1025.]
Accordingly, the Government have provided an early opportunity for the House to do just that.
I propose to explain what the motion before us would do, and why we believe that this is the best course open to the House. In particular, I recognise that there may be a special interest in the possible effect of the motion temporarily on the work of Select Committees, and I hope that it will be for the convenience of the House if I indicate now that I shall deal with that point towards the end of my speech. First, however, I shall outline briefly the background to the events of last week which culminated in your decision, Mr. Speaker.
The background to last week's events was made known to the House by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in response yesterday to a question from the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). In that response she explained that it became clear last October that one programme in the series entitled "The Secret Society" would deal with specific material on a secret defence project. The BBC later decided not to broadcast this sensitive material.
Following Press reports on 18 January that the film would be given a private showing, however, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, acting on behalf of the Government as a whole, applied on 21 January for an ex parte injunction against Duncan Campbell, who had accumulated the material on which the BBC programme was based. This application was supported by an affidavit alleging that dissemination by Duncan Campbell of the material in question would he severely damaging to national security. In the light of this, Mr. Justice Ian

Kennedy granted an order restraining Mr. Campbell from disclosing or publishing, or permitting the disclosure or publication of,
all or any of the information within his knowledge".

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Up to this time, could Mr. Duncan Campbell possibly have received any kind of letter from the Attorney-General suggesting that it was clear for him to go ahead? It would be helpful to the House if any correspondence between the Attorney-General and Mr. Duncan Campbell could be given to us.

Mr. Biffen: This is a point which I feel could more adequately be answered by my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, who will reply to the debate. I will see that his attention is drawn to it.
After the injunction had been granted, the Treasury Solicitor wrote to two Members—the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) — drawing their attention to the injunction's existence as press reports had suggested that they intended to show the film in a room under House of Commons control. Later that evening it became known that the hon. Member for Livingston and other hon. Members had booked a room with the apparent intention of showing the film during the morning of 22 January.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Minister telling the House that the Government first knew of this programme on 10 October but did not move against it in any way until some time around 18 to 21 January? Was no attempt made to stop the BBC making the programme?

Mr. Biffen: I am not saying that. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the questions to the Prime Minister this afternoon, he would have heard that very point dealt with.

Mr. Robin Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister said earlier that the Government learned on 18 January that there was an intention by myself and others to show the film on 22 January. On 21 January, the Government applied for an injunction to prevent that. What happened to the three days in between?

Mr. Biffen: Those are precisely the points of detail that will be dealt with by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, who has direct responsibilities in this area and who will be winding up the debate.
To prevent the film being shown before the House had had a chance to debate whether or not this should be done, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General applied for an injunction early on 22 January to restrain hon. Members from showing the film. That application was, however, refused by Mr. Justice Ian Kennedy on the basis that the House should regulate its own proceedings. Thus we came to the point when you, Mr. Speaker. issued your decision that the film should not be shown in any room under the control of this House.

Mr. McNamara: I return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) about the three-day gap. It was possible for people to see that film without knowing of the Government's seeking an injunction. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) and I saw it, in pursuance of what we felt to be our duty to this House and to our party in relation to the RAF debate which was going to take place during that week. The Minister will recall that I mentioned it in that debate. If it was so important—we


already knew from the invitations that were issued the preceding week and from The Observer newspaper that it was to be shown—why was there not more immediate and direct action by the Government rather than waiting until a later date? I should be grateful to hear the information that the Attorney-General has just passed to the Minister.

Mr. Biffen: As I have already said, this point will be dealt with by my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, not least because of his direct responsibilities in this area.
Your decision, Mr. Speaker, has already been upheld on both sides of the House. Traditionally, Members have recognised that holders of your office have a wide-ranging discretion and a special responsibility to act in the best interests of the House. That is particularly the case when, as on this occasion, the matter requires resolution before there is an opportunity for the House to meet to debate it.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The right hon. Gentleman has made it clear that there is a discretion on the part of the Speaker, but that contradicts his earlier point about the Speaker being obliged to make a decision. Whether it was correct or incorrect is for the House to judge, but Mr. Speaker was not obliged to make that decision—he made it on the basis of his own knowledge of the circumstances.

Mr. Biffen: Mr. Speaker is, of course, a free agent in this matter and has sought early parliamentary confirmation of his action. There can be no doubt about those essential facts of the situation. To imply that somehow or other Mr. Speaker was leaned upon—I am not sure that that implication was intended—is totally remote from the truth.
I believe, as I am sure that the House believes, that it is in the best interests of this House for us to avoid a position in which we might be seen to render ineffective the decision of the High Court on a matter of national security.

Mr. Foot: Will the Leader of the House now deal with the very important matters that were raised before he embarked on the debate? When Mr. Speaker had given his ruling and the Government were proceeding to the next step, did the Government at any stage consider referring this important question to the Committee of Privileges or the Committee on Procedure, and was any such advice given by the Attorney-General? I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will find no other case in parliamentary history in which a Government decided to proceed with a motion of this nature without the matter first going to one of those Committees.

Mr. Biffen: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that in the view of the Government it is wise for the House to have an early opportunity to consider this matter. For those who take the view that the preferred course is to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges, I should point out that the existence of this motion enables that matter to be raised.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Biffen: I have given way generously but I have a responsibility to the House generally to proceed.
We are grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for exercising your discretion in this way. The motion before us specifically confirms the action that you took in prohibiting the House or any room under the control of the House being used for the showing of this one film and giving the House itself an opportunity to consider the matter. In seeking the continuance of that prohibition so long as the injunction granted on 21 January remains in effect, the motion further provides for the endorsement of the basis on which you made that decision.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Mr. Biffen: I have already made it clear to the hon. Gentleman that I intend to finish. I intend to develop my speech for a while because I owe it to the House to do so. The hon. Gentleman is nature's eternal barrack-room lawyer. I am speaking on a matter of supreme significance to the House—a matter on which a judgment, not easy or lightly considered, is to be made by the House. I have a responsibility to put the case as I believe it to be on behalf of the Government and to seek the endorsement of the House. I believe that that endorsement will show that we believe in prudent behaviour in the face of an injunction which was sought for national security but which was deemed to be set aside by certain Members seeking to use the facilities of this House.
The considerations which I believe led you, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that the film could not be shown within the precincts of the House seemed to me to be valid reasons for seeking to ensure that that should continue to be the case until the injunction is lifted. The House will have noted that the terms of the motion are specifically directed to the decision of 22 January and its continuance. This reflects the approach recommended by a number of hon. Members — among them my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) and the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) — in supplementary questions last Friday.

Mr. Kinnock: The right hon. Gentleman has just said that the implication of what you, Mr. Speaker, did last Thursday was that the prohibition should remain in force for as long as the injunction remains in force. You, Mr. Speaker, will recall, as I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will recall, that in your statement to the House last week you said that nothing should occur to prejudice the position relating to the High Court injunction until the House itself had had an opportunity to discuss the matter and to make its own determination upon the matter. I submit that what you said last Thursday in no way implied that you thought that the prohibition should last as long as the injunction but only that it should last until such time as the House made its decision.

Mr. Biffen: The House is faced with a central decision as to whether the arrangements relating to the morning of last Thursday should continue for as long as the injunction continues, or whether at some stage one should reckon that we could, as it were, uncouple from that situation. I understand the right hon. Gentleman's position to be that there should be a point of uncoupling. We are saying that for clarity and simplicity the arrangements should last for as long as the injunction lasts. To move any distance from that, or to engage in a pick and choose exercise, would be difficult for Parliament and intolerable for Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman again, but this


is a matter for you. The principle of coupling and uncoupling has been introduced by the right hon. Gentleman. I have to ask, Mr. Speaker, whether last Thursday it was in your mind that there should be an extension of the prohibition for as long as the injunction lasted, or whether I and many other hon. Members were correct in believing that what was in your mind was that the prohibition should last only for so long as the House had not made its own determination.

Mr. Speaker: What was in my mind was to make that decision until the House had decided what should be done about the matter. I think that the right hon. Gentleman's amendment stakes out fairly that position.

Mr. Biffen: So that there is no misunderstanding between us, one of the matters that the House will have to resolve on this occasion is whether or not the arrangements of last Thursday should last as long as the injunction. If no view was explicitly taken on that matter, it would be left suspended in indecision, so the House properly addresses itself to that point. Of course, the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) and his colleagues take a different view. We understand that they are anxious to maximise any possible points of difference between us so that they may find an alternative on which they can unite.
Quite apart from my seeking a motion which would prove a generally acceptable basis for debate, I believe that there are strong arguments which should dissuade us from seeking to generalise in this area in the immediate aftermath of an individual case. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst said, laying down regulations which will restrict the activities of private Members is not something that we should undertake lightly.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: (Elmet) Is it not the primary responsibility of individual Members of the House to have regard to the consequences of their actions? Has not this unfortunate constitutional position arisen simply because some hon. Members are not prepared to exercise that responsibility? Is my right hon. Friend aware that many in the House will want to ensure that there is a mechanism in place to avoid a repetition of this serious and damaging occurrence so that we do not have to come back to this in the coming days?

Mr. Biffen: I take my hon. Friend's point, but our immediate task is to make secure the decision that was taken last Thursday and to realise the consequences that flow from it. My hon. Friend has wider ambitions, but I believe that they should await another occasion.
Secondly, in this most sensitive area of the relationship between the courts and this House, it has traditionally been the practice that we should as far as possible avoid broad statements defining their respective jurisdictions. Instead, we have dealt with each issue as it arose, and it seems to me both wise and pragmatic to continue to do so. In my view it would, therefore, be wholly inappropriate to use this case as an occasion for a formal recasting of our procedures and machinery for dealing with such matters. Equally, it would be inconsistent with that approach to use this one case as the basis on which to erect sweeping institutional changes to the way in which the House has access to security information.
I recognise, however, as I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, that there is particular interest in how the

motion bears on the work of Select Committees. The amendment from my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) addresses this point. Let me say at once that it is not the Government's intention to alter the long-standing conventions under which Select Committees operate—in particular, with regard to the disclosure of information related to matters affecting national security. These recognise, of course, that such information is not unconditionally available.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Has the Leader of the House noted the terms of his own motion? It refers to prohibiting
the showing of a film, or the playing of a sound track thereof".
Is the Leader of the House aware that there are many transcripts of the whole television programme in the possession of hon. Members on both sides of the House? I have myself offered copies of the transcript to the Chairman of Public Accounts Committee and asked him to distribute it to members of that Committee because we need it in the process of carrying out our work? Is it not ludicrous that the Government should propose to ban a film the transcript of which is being circulated to Members in the carrying out of their public duties?

Mr. Biffen: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's argument. To suggest that there should be casual flouting of the spirit or the letter of an injunction secured in the national interest as though the hon. Gentleman was somehow elevated far above the rest of common mankind is a proposition that I am not prepared to commend.
Perhaps I may continue with my comments in respect of Select Committees. The House will recognise that under the terms of this motion it would be open to a Select Committee, should the occasion arise, to apply to the House for authority to see the film within the precincts of this House if it felt that that was necessary for the proper conduct of its inquiries. I assure hon. Members that, if that were required, the Government would act promptly to provide time for the House to reach a decision on such a request. I further say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, in his capacity as Chairman of the Liaison Committee, that I very much look forward to co-operating with him in monitoring how these arrangements proceed.

Mr. Terence Higgins: My right hon. Friend will recall that last Friday my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) asked him the following question:
When my right hon. Friend considers the terms of the motion, will he ensure there is nothing in it that might impair the rights of the Select Committees of the House?
My right hon. Friend replied:
I can give the undertaking sought by my hon. Friend in respect of Select Committees." — [Official Report, 23 January 1987; Vol. 108, c. 1148.]
We now know the precise terms of the motion that the Government have tabled. Can my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, without any qualification, repeat the assurance that he gave last Friday?

Mr. Biffen: I believe that the essential work of Select Committees is fully safeguarded by the terms that I have just described. In the light of that assurance, I very much hope that my right hon. Friend, who I am sure understands the Government's decision, will not press his amendment.

Mr. Higgins: I asked my right hon. Friend a simple question, albeit a rather lengthy one. Now that he has the


terms of the motion, which were merely anticipated last Friday, can he give the precise assurance that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Woking last week—that the terms of the motion ensure that nothing in it could impair the rights of Select Committees of the House? That is the assurance that he gave last Friday. Now that the motion is before us, can he not simply say, "Yes"?

Mr. Biffen: What I have just argued indicates to the House what I had in mind in giving the undertaking last Friday.

Mr. Higgins: I am sorry to persist. I simply want my right hon. Friend to repeat the assurance that he gave last week. That does not seem an unreasonable request. Surely it is consistent with what he has said. For the avoidance of doubt, will he simply say it in terms?

Mr. Biffen: I appreciate the point that my right hon. Friend makes, but I believe that what I have just elaborated fulfils what I said last Friday. I hope that he will accept that.
There can be no doubt that issues of fundamental importance underlie this debate.

Dr. John Gilbert: Will the Leader of the House give way?

Mr. Biffen: No; I have been generous in giving way so far.
I believe that those issues should be factors in forming our judgments rather than the focus of the discussion. The freedom embodied in parliamentary privilege can be properly maintained only if we continue to exercise it in ways that will not bring the House into disrepute. We have a duty also to give a lead in treating with responsibility issues of national security.
Against that background, the issue before us today is whether we support your action of 22 January, Mr. Speaker, in ensuring that the injunction granted by the High Court on the grounds of national security was not flouted by the use of the facilities of this House.

Mr. John Morris: Will the Leader of the House explain a matter that is causing anxiety to me and to right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches? As I understand the motion, it is a blanket prohibition on showing the film within the precincts of the House. The right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) has asked for an undertaking from the Leader of the House that the work of Select Committees will not be impaired. If members of Select Committees decided that they wanted to see the film or read a transcript of it, how could that be done? How can their work continue unimpaired within the precincts of the House in view of the terms of the motion? Must they go outside the House to see the film?

Mr. Biffen: In the pursuit of their work, should a conflict arise between the members of a Select Committee and any Government Department, members of the Select Committee clearly and explicitly have the right to come to the House for the matter to be resolved. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is the traditional position laid down with the establishment of the Departmental Select Committees by my right hon. Friend the Member for

Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym). All the shock-horror indignation that we are now witnessing runs contrary to what I have just said and guaranteed to Select Committees as to how matters should be carried out.

Mr. Higgins: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Biffen: No.
We believe that you acted in this way, Mr. Speaker, in the best interests of the House.

Mr. Kinnock: I recognise that the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), who has a long and honourable interest in these matters, wishes to intervene. I must tell the Leader of the House that I find his interpretations most peculiar. Is it not the case that Select Committees have the unimpaired right to send for persons and papers, including films? How, then, does the requirement arise that under the terms of the motion a Select Committee chaired by the right hon. Member for Worthing—or, indeed, any Select Committee — would have to come to the House to seek the right to view a film? That is what the Leader of the House has said. If he wants to correct that impression and, in effect, to accept — I appreciate that he could not do so within the terms of order—the words of the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Worthing, that would at least clarify the position even if it does not make the Government motion absolutely acceptable.

Mr. Biffen: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the position at the moment is that Select Committees have the right of access to persons and papers. If those persons and papers are not forthcoming and there is a conflict, the matter may be brought back to the Floor of the House for resolution. That is the position. I have underlined and guaranteed that position in my speech.

Dr. Gilbert: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Biffen: We believe that you, Mr. Speaker, acted in that way in the best interests of the House. For the House now to draw back from that action would be to damage what you have protected—the relationship between this House and the courts.

Mr. Higgins: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and I am sorry to interrupt him yet again. As I understand it, my right hon. Friend has described the existing position with regard to a conflict between a Committee of the House and someone asking for persons and papers to be presented. It is terribly important that we clarify the position with regard to that assurance. Can he confirm the assurance that he gave last Friday—that nothing in the motion in any way impairs the rights of Select Committees of the House? The only alternative is for my right hon. Friend to say that he is withdrawing that assurance, which would be very serious.

Mr. Biffen: I give that assurance and I believe that it is contained in my speech. I hope that that will clear up some misunderstanding between my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing and myself because we are most anxious to work together on this.

Dr. Gilbert: Will the Leader of the House give way?

Mr. Biffen: No, I must be allowed to proceed.
I note the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues, the final limb of which is drawn precisely to create division on an occasion when I


would have hoped that the House could speak with overwhelming authority. It seems to me of particular importance that we are united in confirming your actions, Mr. Speaker, by the continuing of this specific prohibition for as long as the injunction remains effective. I urge the House to reject the Opposition amendment and to endorse the Government motion.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), may I announce to the House that I have received a manuscript amendment from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), which I would be prepared to call. It reads: Line 1, leave out from 'That' to end and add
'Mr. Speaker's ruling of 22nd January, relating to the showing of a film, be referred to the Committee of Privileges'.

Mr. Peter Shore: I am sure that the House will be grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for the announcement that you are accepting the manuscript amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn).
The course of the debate so far has been extremely interesting and also extremely disturbing.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I had thought that the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) was rising on a point of order. The House needs a little more information. Which of the amendments that you have announced to the House will be called and voted upon and in what order? It is crucial to the course of the debate that we have that information.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that the amendments are called in the order in which they fall on the Order Paper. The manuscript amendment will come before the amendment tabled by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Shore: It was my understanding of the matter, that the manuscript amendment would be called first.
It has already become apparent that there is a dangerous ambiguity in the Government's motion. The Government, through their drafting, appear to have created a serious danger that a precedent will be established which, in spite of whatever may be said now and during the debate about your motives, Mr. Speaker, and our understanding of the House, would on other occasions be used and cited with authority. For that reason, I believe on reflection that it is right that the matter should be referred to a Select Committee. I have no hesitation in saying that.
I was enormously worried by the remarks made by the Leader of the House about the Select Committees. It is perfectly plain that, if the prohibition on the showing of the film in the precincts of the House is to run for as long as the injunction, under the terms of the motion to that effect, if carried, it will not be possible for Select Committees to see the film unless they obtain a prior motion on the Floor of the House to amend or overturn the clear meaning and inhibition that the Government motion would impose. Those are two major dangers that we have already discovered, thanks to the persistence and assiduity of my right hon. and hon. Friends who have raised points of order and made interventions.
The Government's attempts to prevent the release of information on the Zircon project last Thursday and the motions and amendments on the Order Paper today raise many important questions. They raise four questions that seem to me to be of particular note and there may be more as the whole saga unfolds. The first is whether you. Mr. Speaker, were right last Thursday morning to instruct the Officers of the House to prevent a showing of the BBC film on video in that part of the Palace of Westminster controlled by the Commons.
Secondly, we must ask whether the Government were right to insist that secrecy and national security should override access to information by the public at large and by hon. Members in particular. Thirdly, if the Government were right, whey did they act so tardily and ineffectively to prevent publication? Fourthly, what is our proper course of conduct now that the information is in the public domain?
The first question has already turned out to he controversial. When you, Mr. Speaker, were informed on Thursday morning that an injunction had been granted against Mr. Duncan Campbell preventing him from revealing any part of the content of the BBC television film, and when you also know that a number of my hon. Friends had arranged for a showing of that film at 11 o'clock within the precincts of the Palace, you had to make an immediate decision—to allow the showing or to use your own authority, in, I think, an unprecedented way, to prevent it. You chose the latter course.
In reply to the point of order properly raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on the Thursday afternoon, you made it clear that it was for the House itself to determine the issue and that your action, since the House was not sitting on Thursday morning, was designed only to ensure that
nothing should occur to prejudice the position until the House itself had an opportunity to discuss the matter."—[Official Report, 22 January 1987; v. 108, c. 1025.]
Therefore, it was a ruling of a deliberately temporary character to enable the House, and not you, Mr. Speaker, to decide the issue. I am sure that that was right, arid most hon. Members will think so as well. I am equally sure that it was right for Mr. Justice Kennedy to refuse the Attorney-General's request to issue an injunction against my hon. Friends and instead to leave the matter of showing the film for the House to decide.
The second question raises an equally difficult issue. I take it for granted that no hon. Member would wish to make public material that could be of use to a potential enemy or would in any way wish to endanger the security of the nation. I also take it for granted that it is one of the inescapable duties of a Member of Parliament to scrutinise Government policy and expenditure in the defence and security areas. Those two duties are difficult to reconcile and at times are in clear conflict with each other.
The claim of national security has been used as a cover for hiding shifts of policy, for ministerial errors and for bureaucratic bungling which should be exposed in the interests of democracy, of the taxpayer and of the security of the nation. On the other hand, accountability and public debate can lead to disclosures which are not just politically embarrassing for Ministers but which genuinely affect national security.
There is a widespread view that in Britain successive Governments, Labour as well as Conservative, have tipped the scales far too heavily against public debate and


accountability. Moreover, in a world in which technology makes secrecy increasingly difficult to maintain, and when other nations, including our principal military ally—the United States have passed freedom of information legislation, much information about our military secrets is available for public scrutiny in public documents available in Washington.
No one who has read the New Statesman article or who has seen Richardson and Balls' book "The Ties that Bind", published in 1985, can doubt that much if not most of the technical information in Mr. Campbell's article was readily available from public sources. Britain's tendency to excessive secrecy has been partly recognised even by the present Government. While they have recoiled from amending section 2 of the Official Secrets Act and are clearly strongly opposed to any form of freedom of information legislation, by setting up the Department-linked system of Select Committees in 1979, they opened themselves to far more sustained and informed questioning and debate than ever before on defence and foreign policy. The agreement reached in 1982 between the Public Accounts Committee and the Ministry of Defence that projects costing in excess of £250 million should be reported to the Committee was a further step forward.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, when the members of the Select Committee on the Environment visited the United States of America, we were provided with information, details and costings about the relationship between civil nuclear power and the production of military plutonium? That information was denied to the members of the Committee here, hon. Members from all parties, yet it was freely available to us in the United States.

Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend confirms the point that I made about a different area of policy but I am sure that what I have said also applies strongly to military defence procurement and projects.
Any case involving national security has to be judged on its merits. I have not seen the BBC film on Zircon, nor was I able to accompany my right hon. Friends when we were invited to meet the Foreign Secretary last Thursday morning. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made clear on Thursday during questions to the Prime Minister, he took the view, following his meeting and exchanges with the Foreign Secretary, that the Government were right to take action to prevent publication of Mr. Campbell's article.
I accept that judgment, but in view of all the subsequent fury directed against the New Statesman, I must make it clear that, whatever the unintended effects may have been for national security, the self-evident main motive for the article and its publication was to arraign the Government for what the author believed to be their deception of the Public Accounts Committee. However, if damage was caused to the national interest it is a grave and worrying matter and something that we all deplore.
I shall now turn to the third question.

Ms. Clare Short: I have not seen the film, but I have carefully read the New Statesman article and I cannot see any issue affecting national security. I know that it is not possible for the Government to spell it out without breaching what they claim is an issue

of security, but perhaps we could have a hint. We are told that the Soviets will understand that the thing is in the air and will know what it can do. A United Nations treaty requires us to say that such-and-such a satellite is in the air. In what way does the article breach national security?

Mr. Shore: As my hon. Friend well knows, I cannot answer that question. I would be able to answer it only if I had been properly and fully briefed. I do not believe that all the members of the Government are totally idiotic and I certainly do not believe that my right hon. Friends who went to see the Foreign Secretary are other than men of excellent judgment and sense.
I shall now turn to the third question that I posed at the start of my speech. Assuming that the Government were right in this case that secrecy was important, why did they act so tardily and so ineffectively to prevent publication? The Leader of the House has not given anything like a satisfactory explanation.
As the House knows, the Attorney-General sought an injunction against Mr. Duncan Campbell only last Wednesday. It was served on him on Thursday afternoon and by then this week's issue of the New Statesman was quite lawfully on the streets. Why was action taken so late? Last Thursday, in spite of repeated questioning, the Prime Minister had no answer.
On Friday, in a lengthy interview with IRN, the right hon. Lady sought to explain the delay when she said:
You can't just go and say please I want a blanket injunction against anyone publishing certain information. The injunction has to be against named individuals and a named publication and you have to have firm evidence of their intention to publish. So that limits what you can get. It was not easy to get that evidence in time.
For the following reasons, that was not a convincing explanation. First, the fact that the film was being made in a BBC series was known not weeks but months ago. My right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee was interviewed last October for the film and asked point blank whether the Zircon project had been reported to the PAC.
Among others interviewed were Sir Frank Cooper, former permanent secretary to the Ministry of Defence, and Professor Sir Ronald Mason, the defence chief scientific adviser up to 1983. The latter was "flabbergasted" that the word "Zircon" had been mentioned and said, according to Mr. Duncan Campbell,
I just can't talk about it. I didn't know that was out…you surprise me".
We also know that Sir Peter Merrychurch, the director of GCHQ, met the Director-General of the BBC on 5 December and told him that "serious damage" to national security would follow if the film were shown.
Last night, in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), the Prime Minister made the matter perfectly clear when she said:
The Government became aware in a general sense of the BBC's plan for one or more programmes in the Summer of 1986; and of the intention to include specific material on a secret defence project in October 1986. Discussions then took place between the Government and the BBC, who subsequently decided on grounds of national security not to show the material on the project.
Not only did the Government know, but the issue itself became public a week last Thursday when Mr. Alasdair Milne, Director-General of the BBC, having been advised by the permanent secretary to the Ministry of Defence that


national security was involved, announced his public decision to veto the showing of the film. Why on earth was an injunction not served on Mr. Duncan Campbell then?
Then, a week later, The Observer carried a front page article on the BBC's decision to ban the programme. Still the Government did not act. No injunction was served against the New Statesman.
Yet not only is Mr. Duncan Campbell a regular writer for the New Statesman, but his paper negotiated a contract under which the New Statesman would simultaneously publish an article by Mr. Campbell when the television film was shown. That was an unusual contract clause, as the right of first publication is normally exercised by The Listener. Any inquiry as to the nature of the contract made with the BBC would have revealed this fact. Anyone with any sense, and who knows about Mr. Duncan Campbell and his previous history, knows that he writes for the New Statesman. So why on earth was action not taken?
The conclusion is inescapable. The Government had prior knowledge, ample time and sufficient information to prevent the disclosure by the BBC, the New Statesman and anyone else. They bungled it. Now they are thrashing around, looking for any excuse, heaping any amount of abuse and trying ineffectively to close the stable door after the horses have bolted.
On Thursday, after publication of the New Statesman, the Treasury solicitor wrote to all newspaper editors seeking an assurance that
."your newspaper will not publish anything relating to subject matter falling within the injunction granted to the Attorney—General against Mr. Duncan Campbell on 21st January 1987.
Friday's newspapers gave the answer. The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, The Guardian, and The Times all published substantial pieces based on the New Statesman's article. Mr. Max Hastings, editor of the Daily Telegraph, wrote back saying that he could not give any such assurance, as did other Fleet street editors. Last Friday, his editorial summed up the matter in these words:
this Newspaper strongly supports the concept of defence secrecy and opposes the action of Mr. Campbell. But it would be perverse of us, along with the rest of the media, to accept the Treasury solicitor's request not to give further publicity to the material revealed when this has been made only after the Soviet Embassy and any other interested parties have had time to collect special souvenir editions of the New Statesman. The Government must have known for weeks what Mr. Campbell proposed to reveal. By acting now, in a hopeless muddle, the Attorney—General has made an ass of himself —and worse, of the legitimate case for official secrecy.
I caution my hon. Friends on this point. I am not sure that the criticism of the Attorney-General is fair, because two days later the Sunday Telegraph gave us a little more information. It said:
according to Whitehall sources"—
I wonder what those are—
Sir Michael Havers, the Attorney-General, felt that there were sufficient grounds a week ago to seek an injunction against Mr. Duncan Campbell … Sir Michael was opposed by Cabinet colleagues including Mr. Younger, Defence Secretary"—
who is not on the Front Bench today—
who were nervous about appearing to want a blanket ban. As a result, details of the satellite were published in last week's New Statesman. Decisions to prosecute for an alleged offence are taken by the Attorney-General, but a decision to seek an injuction needs Ministerial approval and that was not forthcoming until last Wednesday after vigorous representation by Sir Michael.
Is this true? The Solicitor-General will, I hope, give us a straight answer when he replies. Will he also tell us, since

so many newspapers have ignored the Treasury solicitor's advice, whether their editors will now be proceeded against, or is it just the New Statesman that is to be the target for the Government's frustration and rage?
My last question is, what is our proper conduct now that the information about Zircon is in the public domain? What, in other words, should we do now that horses have bolted, and the genie is out of the bottle? The Government's motion invites us to pretend that nothing has happened; to take part in a charade; to believe that, if we clap our hands over our eyes, no one else can see what is taking place; to continue, as the Government's motion puts it, not to show the TV film in the precincts of the House.
so long as the injunction remains in effect.
That resolution would not only prevent interested hon. Members in general from seeing the film, but would clearly prevent, as hon. Members have already made clear in their interventions, the Select Committee on Defence and the Public Accounts Committee from seeing it as well. Certainly they would need not only encouraging words from the Leader of the House but an amending resolution before they could do so.

Mr. Leigh: Is it not implicit in the motion tabled by the Prime Minister—and if it is not implicit in that motion, is it not made explicit by the words of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House today—that nothing in that motion is prejudicial to the rights of Select Committees conferred on them by Standing Orders Nos. 122 and 130?

Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman should have listened to what I said at the beginning, or indeed what other Labour Members have said in their interventions. Words used in explanation of resolutions and motions passed by this House may have a certain value, but they are not to be set against the proper interpretation to be placed upon the motions and resolutions that are actually passed. That is what carries authority. That point has clearly been registered by the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) who has put down a specific amendment to safeguard the rights of Select Committees.
This is a lamentable story of Government ineptitude and inefficiency. We are now being invited to participate in a farce, and we will not do so.

Mr. Terence Higgins (Worthing): The motion before the House supports the action that you, Mr. Speaker, took last week. I join those who take that view. In the circumstances it was right that you should have acted as decisively as you did. It is to the benefit of the House and of the country that that was the position. Nevertheless, the decision raises a number of complex issues, not least the vital importance, which I am second to none in supporting, of the need to preserve national security. That being so, I do not propose to pursue some of the points that the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) raised in a somewhat more partisan context.
I shall return to the point that I sought to raise in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I am grateful to him for giving way to me no fewer than four times, because it is important that we clarify precisely the position of the Select Committee system. No one should be under any misapprehension. It is a fairly complex matter, which requires careful analysis.
I start by referring to the exchange that took place on the Floor of the House on 23 January between my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. My hon. Friend asked:
When my right hon. Friend considers the terms of the motion, will he ensure that there is nothing in it that might impair the rights of the Select Committees of the House?
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House replied:
I can give the undertaking sought by my hon. Friend in respect of Select Committees." — [Official Report, 23 January 1987; Vol. 108, c. 1148.]
This is the point that I wish to pursue. When that exchange took place, it was in the context of unknown wording for the motion, and I do not doubt that much thought has been given to the wording of both the Government's motion and the Opposition's amendment. That being so, it is right to ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to confirm today, now that the terms of the motion are known, the assurance that he gave on the previous occasion. We have heard the exchanges and we shall need to consider carefully what my right hon. Friend said. None the less, as has been pointed out, I tabled an amendment that effectively confirms the view that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House expressed last Friday.
I should stress that, as the new departmental Select Committee system has developed, in many respects it has been done not by changes in Standing Orders or by specific motions, but by the assurances that have been given to the House by successive Leaders of the House. There have been three since the Government supported the establishment of the Select Committees. For example, there is the matter, still being debated, of whether Select Committees should have the right, as against the request, to see Ministers. Successive Leaders of the House have given an assurance that if there is any dispute on that, the matter will be referred to the Floor of the House, and the Leader of the House will seek to provide time to debate it. This afternoon, if I understood my right hon. Friend correctly, he said something rather stronger. He said that, if there is any dispute on these matters, he will guarantee that a debate takes place. In this case, as the motion is narrowly drawn, the debate would be on the dispute about the film.
One should recall precisely the present powers to send for persons and papers. It is not just a question of the relevant Standing Orders, because some Select Committees have that power by virtue of a motion from the Floor of the House rather than by Standing Orders. Be that as it may, the situation is as follows. The Select Committees are given, either by motion or under Standing Orders, the power to send for persons, papers or records. If they request such papers, and that request is acceded to, they are able to obtain them and carry out their work in the usual way. However, if that request is refused, and provided that they go through more formal proceedings, then it is necessary to return to the Floor of the House to secure those papers. That is the existing position, and as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, there is no change. That is so in this as in any other case.
It would seem to be the case, but I am not sure, that the situation is somewhat altered by the injunction. It is not clear whether we are now being told that the Committee will anyway have to return to the Floor of the House. Here we run into something of a procedural tangle because, as

I understand it, should the Select Committee on Defence, for example, say that it wishes to see the film and that request is refused, it would need to return to the Floor of the House to obtain it, and there is no change in this. However, the effect of the motion, if we were to carry it, would be that the film could not be shown in the precincts of the Palace. As I understand it, there would be nothing to stop the Defence Committee requesting to see it and seeing it elsewhere, without returning to the Floor of the House. I am not sure whether that is the position, but it is my understanding of the position. We enter into a complex situation, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, in his reply to the debate, will be able to make clear precisely what the position is.
It is important, if we can do so, that we should proceed as the Select Committees have proceeded up till now, by assurances from the Floor of the House rather than by specific motions. That system has worked very well until now, and if we can get that assurance, the House might prefer that.
Be that as it may, I am still a little unclear, despite four interventions, whether my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, in his final reply to me, was stating categorically that he repeated and reaffirmed, without qualification, the assurance that he gave the House last Friday—that the motion as it stands in no way impairs the rights of Select Committees. If that is so, that is a basis on which we might reasonably proceed, but I am not sure that I got that categorical assurance. That being so, and because in the hurly-burly of debate it was not easy to hear the precise words, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General can make it clear beyond peradventure, and we can proceed.
The motion raises wide-ranging and important issues that may need to be considered in a broader context by the appropriate Committee, whether it be the Select Committee of Privileges or the Select Committee on Procedure.

Mr. Stanbrook: Is not my right hon. Friend's argument something of a non sequitur? After all, Select Committees derive all their powers from the House. If, tonight, we were to pass a specific motion prohibiting something in the House, that must apply to the actions of any Select Committee; otherwise, what my right hon. Friend is suggesting in his amendment is that a Select Committee, notwithstanding this motion, should have the right to override what has already been decided by the House.

Mr. Higgins: With respect to my hon. Friend, that is not my understanding of the position. The situation is the one that I have already described. That is, if we pass the motion, with the assurances of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House but without my amendments, the relevant Committees could proceed in the normal way, but they would have to return to the Floor of the House to get the substantive motion. I think that that is so, but these are complex matters and I cannot guarantee to say on my feet, at a moment's notice, that that is not the position.
If we have the assurance that I have mentioned, we have a reasonable basis on which to proceed. It has to be a clear and categorical assurance that the status quo on the rights of Committees is not to be altered by the motion. As I understand it, that has been the position of the Government throughout. I cannot presume to say, but I


am sure that, in making your ruling, Mr. Speaker, it was not your intention to inhibit the working of the Select Committees. That being so, I hope that the winding up speech will be appropriately helpful and we can proceed accordingly.

Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield): I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to put before the House the manuscript amendment standing in my name that would transfer the matter to the Committee of Privileges. The amendment is, in line 1, leave out from 'That' to end and add
'Mr. Speaker's ruling of 22nd January, relating to the showing of a film, be referred to the Committee of Privileges'.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman may move the amendment at the end of the debate, but he may speak to it now.

Mr. Benn: If the motion proposed by the Leader of the House were passed today, even the Committee of Privileges would not be allowed to see the film upon which Mr. Speaker gave his ruling.
I think it is obvious to the House that the issues we are discussing go far beyond the immediate matters of controversy between the Government and the Opposition, the related question of the Campbell article in the New Statesman on the film or the project. I do not wish to go back over the issues of last week when you took a decision, Mr. Speaker, at very short notice, because it is today that we face the big decision.
Those of us who have anxieties about the implication of the decision that you took last week, Mr. Speaker, wish to make it clear that those anxieties are in no sense personally related to you. Nevertheless, those anxieties are clear and specific and can be set out in the following way. If the Government are asking that we should "confirm" your ruling, or if, as the amendment put down by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), states, we should "accept" that decision, the difficulties go far beyond the Opposition and extend to the Chairmen and members of the Select Committees. That is why I am moving that the matter should go to the Committee of Privileges, which was set up by the House many years ago to examine matters that require complex examination. We should not reach a decision until the Committee of Privileges has reported.
The issue that we are discussing is a fundamental constitutional one of the relationship of the Commons, Members of Parliament and the electors on the one hand; and the Executive and the judiciary on the other. Although you quite properly said, Mr. Speaker, that you did not wish your ruling of last Thursday to be treated as a precedent, if we confirm or accept it tonight it will appear in "Erskine May" and will be quoted in future Parliaments and have a profound effect upon Parliament.
I do not believe that there is any precedent for the ruling that you gave, Mr. Speaker. I have searched carefully through Erskine May" and I can find no precedent, nor can I imagine that when the Committee on Accommodation was set up it was ever intended that the organisation of Committee Rooms of the House should be used to prevent the showing of a film on the provision of information that might assist hon. Members in the course of their work.
It is right that we should look at your role, Mr. Speaker, in this connection, because it is the highest office that we

can bestow and you speak for us and defend us from the Executive. I have cited before, and will cite again, the words of Mr. Speaker Lenthall. On 4 January 1642 the King came to the Commons to seize the five Members. Mr. Speaker Lenthall, described as "a man of timorous nature", knelt and said:
May it please your Majesty, I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as the House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here.
That was the precedent. It could be argued that Wit was not in relation to five hon. Members and King that precedent would not apply. However, we have taken it, ever since, as a statement of your role. Now when a new Speaker is elected he goes to the other place to claim the ancient privileges of the House.
I am sorry to go back to the texts, but people may not always appreciate their importance. In 1688 the 9th article of the Bill of Rights stated:
That the freedom of speech, and debates or proceedings in Parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or place out of Parliament.
Hon. Members may ask whether a film shown somewhere else in the Chamber can be described as a proceeding in Parliament. Fortunately, we have a precedent for that as well. In 1938 Duncan Sandys, a Member of the House and also a member of the Territorial Army, received from a colleague in the Territorial Army information that there were defects in the air defence of London. He tabled a question and the person from whom he got the information was charged under the Official Secrets Act 1911. Duncan Sandys came to the House to appeal to the House to protect him by way of privilege and the person who gave the information.
I know about this matter because my father was on the Committee of Privileges or the Select Committee which reported on the case. I remember most vividly the debate in the House. The House upheld the view—I shall refer to it because it refers directly to the question as to what is a proceeding in Parliament — and did so in a case involving the Official Secrets Act. I shall quote from "Erskine May", page 93, commenting on the Committee that examined the Sandys case:
cases may easily be imagined of communications between one Member and another or between a Member and a Minister, so closely related to some matter pending in, or expected to be brought before the House, that, although they do not take place in the Chamber or a committee room, they form part of the business of the House.
That was one of the most important judgments reached by the House, especially when one considers, to its credit, that it was in the middle of war. As far as I recall, the matter was discussed in the House in May 1940, when it may well have had other matters to consider. Nevertheless, it entrenched the right of its Members to receive information from someone who is not a Member of the House even when that information is in respect of the security of the country.
I give that historical and legal background only to underline the enormity of the decision that it is proposed we should take without any further examination of the issues at stake. My amendment does not prejudge any of those issues, but invites the House to put the matter to the Committee that is best qualified to judge.
It is an issue that is not just of historical and legal importance, but one which will have immediate, practical importance to the future workings of parliamentary democracy. I ask the House to ask itself these important


questions before hon. Members go into the Lobby to vote on any of the amendments, other than the one referring to the Committee of Privileges.
First, is it right for the Government to engage in major military projects without telling Parliament? This question, as my hon. Friends will know, points a finger of criticism at both Labour and Tory Governments. I think I am one of the few surviving Members who sat in this House when Mr. Attlee was Prime Minister and Mr. Attlee developed the atom bomb without telling Parliament. At the time, that may have been considered acceptable, but I do not believe that any hon. Member would accept that it would be right to do that today.
The House does not want technical details about the defence of secrets when the question of security arises. I have not read the article in the New Statesman and I do not particularly want to read what Duncan Campbell may say about a particular satellite. However, Parliament must know the general nature of major defence projects, their purpose and their cost. If Parliament does not know that it is abdicating its responsibilities.
The second question is whether it is right that Ministers should be able to go to any court and use the magic words "national security" as the basis for a court injunction. In a democracy it is for the House and electors to decide what is in the national interest. And when there is a general election, it is the people's judgment as to what is in the national interest that counts. It is not for civil servants, generals, scientists or Ministers to determine what is national security. The judges of the Cheltenham case have said that if the magic words "national security" are used they will not allow the matter to be raised.

Mr. Norman Buchan: rose—

Mr. Benn: The third question that I would like the House to consider is whether it is right that any Speaker — so as not to personalise it — hearing news of an injunction that has been issued should be able, without the explicit and specific authority of the House, to prevent hon. Members from seeking available information that would assist Parliament in its work of holding Governments to account. As the court in question declined to grant an injunction against some hon. Members, it is clear that it recognised the limits of its powers. Page 204 of "Erskine May" states:
the courts admit: That the control of each House over its internal proceedings is absolute and cannot be interfered with by the courts.
I do not know, and it is not my concern, to what extent that aspect was in your mind, Mr. Speaker, when you took what you feel to have been interim action, but that is the question that we have to ask today, because we are reaching permanent decisions.
The next question is whether we should accept and confirm a limit on our freedom as Members of Parliament that would assist the concealment of any matter by any Government of any Parliament — this is not just in relation to this matter—by the use of national security and injunctions. I worry greatly over the other implications of your ruling, Mr. Speaker. What if the police had gone to a magistrate and asked for a warrant to search the papers of my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) at the time they were going to the home of Duncan Campbell? What would have been the

position? Is it the case that the House could ever allow the courts or a magistrate to send policemen into the Palace, where already a film may not be shown, to discover the sources of information of a Member who might be contemplating a parliamentary question?
If we accept the motion or the amendment, we would be placing the House of Commons and Members of Parliament for ever under the effective control of the Government, in that Ministers could bring an injunction, the court could accede to the injunction and—nobody would wish this less than you, Mr. Speaker — Mr. Speaker would become an agent of the Minister and his injunction and the court that upheld it, to enforce upon Members the denial of the rights for which we were elected. I cannot believe, knowing you, Mr. Speaker, that it would be your wish to be remembered as a "Counter-Lenthall" whose protection did not extend to hon. Members in this position.
I should like to make a final comment as an old Member of the House. We all take children and visitors round the House. I do and have done for many years. We tell them that we keep Black Rod out. We tell them about the Outlawries Bill, we tell them that the House decides on its own business before it gives attention to the Gracious Speech. We tell them about the Army and Air Force (Annual) Act and the order to prevent a standing Army being maintained and we tell them about the five Members. Those are not meaningless rituals. They are reminders of monumental struggles to build democracy against tyranny. It is important that we should not treat them simply as tourist attractions.
For all those reasons, I appeal to hon. Members of all parties to pass the amendment that refers the matter to the place where these implications can be fully considered. I appeal to the Leader of the House to recognise the importance of his role in granting a free vote to Conservative Members on the question of reference to the Committee of Privileges. If that is rejected, the matter will have to be dealt with by the motion on the Order Paper. In 36 years in the House I cannot recall a debate as important as this and I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing my manuscript amendment to be put on the Order Paper tonight along with the motion and the other amendments before us.

Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking): The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) is right in what he said about the importance of the debate. However, some of the considerations that he put before the House seem to be not quite as relevant as he supposed, and some of his arguments were not as complete as they might have been. When he told us how he conducts parties round the House, he might have added one other important piece of parliamentary law, which is the right of any hon. Member, when he feels it appropriate, to require that the House remembers its obligation to keep matters secret by "spying strangers". When we consider this important matter, we should not forget that we have that duty and that we have a procedure that has been used, rightly, in the national interest. I am glad to see that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) appears to agree with me.

Mr. James Callaghan: I was agreeing with a remark made by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), not with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Onslow: I do not mind whether the right hon. Gentleman listens to his hon. Friend or to me. However, as I have the Floor perhaps I can claim your attention, Mr. Speaker.
The most important feature of the debate seems to me to be that the House should support the action that you took, Mr. Speaker, and the reasons why you took it. If you had taken a different decision, you would have anticipated the freedom of the House to make up its own mind by precipitating a course of events that would have made today's discussion irrelevant. It is not the Chair's function to do that, as you are the first to recognise. You are here to protect the rights of hon. Members, not to pre-empt them. [Interruption.]. To be told that I am blathering when I say that suggests that there are some Opposition Members whose motives in the debate are not as pure as they might be.

Mr. Allan Rogers: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been listening attentively to the speeches and I have not decided how I intend to vote. However, it is not right that any hon. Member should accuse Labour Members of unworthy motives. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) should substantiate his comment or withdraw it.

Mr. Onslow: If it was not the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) who interjected, blathering from a sedentary position, I apologise.

Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Woking has not answered my hon. Friend's point. He said clearly that the motives of Labour Members are not as pure as is made out. That casts aspersions on Labour Members and it is only right and proper that the hon. Gentleman should withdraw that remark or name those he is accusing.

Mr. Speaker: This is an important debate, involving a high constitutional issue. I ask the House to keep the temperature down. I am sure that the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) did not intend to impugn the honour of any Member in the House.

Mr. Onslow: That was certainly not my intention. I do not have any intention of being provoked further by sedentary interventions. I hope that there will not be any more.
We must first recognise the rightness of your action, Mr. Speaker. We must also recognise that you had to take that action in circumstances which may well have no precedent. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield said that he had searched "Erskine May" for a precedent. I do not suppose that any hon. Member was surprised to hear that he did not find one, because this must be the first occasion on which this device has been employed in an attempt to use the procedures and facilities of the House to circumvent an injunction of this kind. Therefore, we are making case law. We had to react to a situation that was created not by the Government but by some Opposition Members, for reasons that so far we have not heard them explain. I hope that there will be an opportunity for those concerned to explain.
Perhaps the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who appears to be waiting to speak for the alliance, can explain how far he became involved in attempts to obtain a Committee Room to show

the film. We look forward to hearing him do so. I will not say any more, because I have not heard his explanation. I have not heard the explanation of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) for the action he thought it right to take. I am sure that the House will be interested to hear what he has to say. Equally, I hope that both hon. Gentlemen will concede to the House that they confronted you, Mr. Speaker, with an entirely new and unlooked-for situation, and that it is right that you should have reacted to it in the way that you did.
Nor, when we come to consider the extent to which Select Committees of the House may or may not be involved, should we be too carried away by comparisons which might be drawn if we were on the other side of the Atlantic. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) will not mind me saying that the rights of Select Committees are drawn entirely from the decisions of the House. They are not independent, autonomous bodies, they do not have absolute powers and they exist in order to serve the House and to do, broadly speaking, what the House wants them to do.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Does my hon. Friend accept that many hon. Members think that some Select Committees take themselves a great deal too seriously? It is the Floor of the House that matters above all.

Mr. Onslow: As a former Chairman of the Defence Select Committee, I do not think that I want to be drawn into that argument, but my hon. Friend may wish to make it in his own way.
We find ourselves discussing this matter today, not because a Select Committee of the House took the initiative to book a room and show a film which was made by somebody whom the Daily Telegraph describes as a professional exposer of defence secrets and who takes it upon himself to decide where the national interest lies. If a Select Committee had taken that decision and created this situation, we would be considering something different, but we are not.
Nor should we be too impressed by the argument of the hon. Member for Livingston that the horse has bolted, so there is no point in locking the door. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made, with considerable force, the comment that one action which undermines national security does not justify another. It would be wrong if the House took a decision this afternoon which appeared to have the opposite effect. We cannot accept the proposition that, because a breach of national security may have been committed by somebody outside, we should be manoeuvred into a position of condoning it. If Parliament became, in that sense, a public convenience,it would be very bad indeed. People at large expect us to maintain a continuing judgment and defence of the interests of national security.
I know that many hon. Members want to speak, so I shall not speak at length, but I want to touch on one other point. The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), who intervened on Friday morning when my hon. Friend the Leader of the House made his statement, thought that this situation was a further example of the need which he sees for some kind of standing monitoring body of Privy Councillors to invigilate issues of security and intelligence. Nothing that has been said in this debate justifies that in any way. I can see no justification for such


bodies. The Home Secretary deployed powerful arguments against them in the debate on 3 December. There is no "need to know", nor are things being wrongly concealed from Parliament. The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee has confirmed that his Committee has not been deceived, so the main burden of the newspaper story has already been destroyed.
We are left with a situation in which undoubted harm is threatened to our national interest. It may not be, in this case, by secrets being clandestinely handed over to an enemy, but by an attempt to create a situation in which the Government cannot defend the national interest as effectively as they think necessary. The House is being asked, judging by some of the comments that we have heard, to condone a situation which would be a most serious threat to our national interest. Whatever else we may do this evening, we cannot approve of that

Mr. James Callaghan: When I came into the Chamber this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I promise you that I had no intention other than to listen to the intellectual stimulation which is always provided by Prime Minister's Question Time and then to enjoy a quiet cup of tea. When I saw, for the first time, the motion on the Order Paper and the consequential amendments I began to be concerned about what the House was being asked to approve.
A resolution of the House is of great importance. It passes into the annals of the House and is referred to by Mr. Speaker and others, such as future Leaders of the House, and will undoubtedly be of great significance in determining our future action. Therefore, something further should be considered before we agree to a motion, or indeed to the amendments on the Order Paper. I say that about both motion and amendments, and that is why I raised the matter as a point of order at the beginning.
As the oldest Member of the House—

Mr. Winnick: Not the oldest Member. What about our hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Edwards)?

Mr. Callaghan: I am delighted to hear that; there is still a chance yet.
I have no intention of challenging what you did last week, Mr. Speaker, because in the circumstances with which you were faced you had no alternative. The amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) that you have said you will put to the House later this evening is not intended to convey any implication of that sort as far as I am concerned, or anybody else. It is designed for an entirely different purpose and I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you will take it personally as such.
However, we should have more time to consider the matter. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) referred to the fact that the Government seem to have taken a long time to take action on this matter. They also took a long time to put down this motion, because unless we had some access to the Lobby yesterday, and happened to pick up a sheet of paper that was lying in it, we did not know what was to appear on the Order Paper today. The Government were tardy in the

action that they took in the courts and tardy in relation to the motion. I beg for more time to consider what the House should commit itself to.
There is no doubt in my mind that the Government have every right to use the issue of national security to request the House of Commons not to consider any particular matter at any time. That throws a great obligation upon the Government not to abuse that privilege, or their responsibility in this matter.
The House also has a right to be sceptical. All Governments, especially after a period in office, fall into a belief in their own capacity to be right on all occasions, and to be judge in their own court. No Government are immune, and the longer the Government are in office the more the arrogance of power eats at them. I am not referring only to this Government; it applies to almost every Government that I have seen in the House, unless they have a majority of two or no majority at all, when one has to be very humble to almost any Member. I do not deny the Government their rights or responsibility for security in this matter.
I did not find the speech of the Leader of the House convincing. He seemed to be in some discomfort, and it was a rather stumbling speech as though he was pretty uncomfortable about what he was doing, I assume that he was not involved in the orginal decision. I was reminded of an occasion early in the war when Winston Churchill was put up to defend a series of not very splendid decisions by the Chamberlain Government. He did it in such a robust way that somebody from the Opposition Benches —I have forgotten who it was—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Lloyd Georgel Yes, of course it was—said that the right hon. Gentleman should not convert himself into an air raid shelter for the protection of his colleagues. No one could have accused the right hon. Gentleman of being a robust air raid shelter this afternoon. He sounded as though a dilapidation order had been served on him.
In giving the Government the benefit of the doubt, as I do on these matters—I have not been briefed on this; I try to speak with a sense of responsibility—I am a little worried about what is wrong with what has happened. I can only assume that it is the disclosure of the fact that the project was being undertaken that has so alarmed the Government. It is unusual to find my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield and me operating together, but, unlike him, I have read the evidence in the New Statesman and I find it a little difficult to know—perhaps I am a little sceptical—what it is all about. But then, I have not had the advantage of being briefed. If I had been, no doubt the Government would have convinced me.
That being so, without casting any aspersions — I daresay that the Government have acted in good faith; I hope so, because it is their responsibility to do so —we have a responsibility in the House to see whether the procedures that have been followed, and which you, Mr. Speaker, had to undertake on this occasion, could be improved.
I appeal to the Leader of the House, and to Conservative Members, who will have more influence with him than I do—as you rightly said, Mr. Speaker, we have not approached the matter from a party point of view —and, indeed, I ask my own Front Bench, from whom I shall probably have an affirmative answer, to support the amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield.
I have served in the House for many years and I want to say seriously to hon. Members that there is a strong case here for the House to look at the matter to see what procedures could be devised that would improve on the present position. It may be that there are none. I have lived long enough and been in office long enough to know that it is impossible to define the exact constitutional relationship between the courts and Parliament. Indeed, it would probably be undesirable to do so. That is not to say that we should not consider these matters from time to time to see whether some improvement can be made. That is a proper job for the Committee of Privileges.
I hope that the Leader of the House will not feel that amour propre is at stake here, that the Government must insist on their motion, and that Conservative Members, and perhaps some Opposition Members, who have not heard the debate will vote as their Whips tell them. I hope that he will tell the House that, on reflection, having listened to the arguments that have been put forward, including the argument of the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), which it may be possible to dispose of, perhaps tonight— I do not know—there is a good case for looking at the situation which has arisen without precedent as a result of an attempt to show a film. Let us have a look at the matter. No harm will come to the House of Commons if the Committee of Privileges looks at it. That Committee is drawn from senior Members on both sides of the House.
There is nothing more that I want to add tonight. We should give the Government the benefit of the doubt, whatever our party views may be on this question. As we are unable to judge for ourselves, I am willing to give the Government the benefit of the doubt on this matter. There will always be occasions, in the future as in the past, when the Government may know things that cannot be made available. I do not accept the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield that Parliament must on all occasions know everything. It is not possible to conduct our national affairs in that way.
In that spirit, I urge the Leader of the House, and Conservative Members, who will have more influence with the Leader of the House than I, that we should take a little more time to look at the matter. We have a perfectly good Committee to look at it. It may say that it can design no improvement and that we must leave it to Mr. Speaker in future, as has been the case in the past, and you, Mr. Speaker, and your successors will then be burdened with the task. That may be what will happen. But I do not believe that we should commit ourselves to something that will be referred to year after year after you, Mr. Speaker have gone from the Chair, when your successors may not take the same position. We should not be bound by a resolution of the House without considering it further.

Mr. Roger Sims: I am privileged to follow the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan). If I do not pursue his argument immediately, he may find that my comments on Friday, when I referred to the desirability of not taking a decision in the heat of the moment, chime very much with some of the comments that he has just made.
The debate contains two interwoven strands. One concerns the making of a film and the publishing of an article, the extent to which they posed a threat to national security, whether and how national security was breached

and whether in those circumstances the Government should have acted differently. The other strand concerns the rights, usages and privileges, both of the House collectively and of its individual Members. It is to the latter point that I want to address myself.
You had occasion, Mr. Speaker, in the course of recent months, to remind us that next year we shall celebrate the tercentenary of the Bill of Rights, which is the nearest thing that we have to a written constitution. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has already reminded us of one of its clauses and it does no harm to remind ourselves again. That is:
That the Freedom of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament.
It is clear from "Erskine May" that the definition of "Proceedings in Parlyament" extends beyond the Chamber and embraces the activities of Members of Parliament such as in Select and Standing Committees, tabling questions, and so on, in the course of' their parliamentary duties.
I confess that I was nonplussed by the exchange between my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) about the status of Select Committees. Surely the present position is clear: that if a Select Committee calls for papers or records which are refused, it can come to the House and have a resolution passed. But it can be no defence in calling for papers that they are the subject of an injunction. If they are the subject of an injunction, that is of the High Court, of which this is a higher court. For a document to be the subject of an injunction would not of itself prevent it from being presented to a Select Committee. I really could not see why my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was not prepared to agree straight away to give the undertaking which he was asked to give by our right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing.
Having been fairly clear in one's mind as to what are proceedings in Parliament which are the subject of privilege, it is clear that other activities may well fall within that definitation. But equally, a private gathering of Members in a room does not constitute proceedings in Parliament, even though that room may well be within this building.
However, as Members of the House we enjoy privileges in another sense. I well remember, shortly after my election to the House nearly 13 years ago, taking a few friends round. I asked one of the security fellows if I could take my guests out on to the Terrace. He said: "Of course, Sir. This is your House." So it is. It is the House of all of us. Indeed, in theory, we can do what we like within the building.
With that power and privilege goes responsibility and none of us should abuse or misuse that power, responsibility and privilege. In any case, of course, the interests of us all are bound by some rules that have been made so that this place can do its business properly. There are rules about the way in which we can book rooms, where we can take strangers and how many people we can take on to the Terrace at any one time. However, there is a relative freedom to use the facilities of this House and that freedom is very important in enabling us to carry out our duties as Members of Parliament.
Last week, we were faced with an unusual and unique set of circumstances. I do not need to repeat them, as they have already been clearly described by my right hon.


Friend the Leader of the House. However, it seemed that when you were faced with a situation in which my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General had failed to get an injunction to prevent certain Members of the House from viewing a film which was to be shown within a few minutes, you were then faced with the difficulty, Mr. Speaker, that the judge had said that this was a matter for the House. You found yourself in a dilemma because there was no chance whatsoever of consulting the House so that it could make its collective will known.
Therefore, you took what you described as urgent administrative action, as you had the right to do in your executive capacity as the person responsible for this end of the Palace of Westminster. At the time of making your statement you made it perfectly clear. You said:
I gave instructions that nothing should occur to prejudice the position until the House itself had an opportunity to discuss the matter."—[Official Report, 22 January 1987; Vol. 108, c. 1025.]
That is precisely what we are doing now.
The grounds on which the injunction was granted against certain people were, among others, those of national security. I understand that the Leader of the Opposition and some of his hon. Friends were briefed on Privy Council terms and accepted that the contents of the film undermined national security and that they made it clear that they supported your decision. You have not said, Mr. Speaker, whether you had a similar briefing, but clearly you would have been entitled to one as a Privy Councillor, and it would be perfectly proper if you had had one.
Faced with that situation, Mr. Speaker, I believe that you were absolutely right to make the order that you did. It has been referred to in some quarters as a ruling, but I think that that confuses it with some of the rulings that you make in the House. It was an order made in your administrative capacity.
The fact that some hon. Members subsequently watched the film elsewhere is immaterial. Your powers, Mr. Speaker, and those of the House are confined to this building. That the contents of the film were subsequently published despite the injunction, does not alter the correctness of your decision. However, it seems to point to a weakness in the law about injunctions. I am not a lawyer, but as I understand it, an injunction in cases such as this normally has to apply in respect of certain named persons or bodies and has no impact on anybody else.
Common sense would suggest that, in a case like this, where there is a possible danger to national security if certain material is disclosed to unauthorised persons or if it is publicised in any form, it should be possible to obtain an injunction covering the material and its publication or its disclosure by anybody, rather than specifying possible outlets. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will comment on whether he feels that there is a case for a revision of the law in this respect.
Reverting to the immediate issue that concerns the House, I believe that you, Mr. Speaker, were right to take the decision that you did, and as the injunction that was obtained is still in effect, the prohibition should remain in force. The fact that some people have got around the injunction does not alter that.
My inclination is to support the Government's motion, but I have to say that, like right hon. and hon. Members

on both sides of the House, I am concerned about the implications for the future of the wording of the motion. It appears to apply only to this film, and to the present incident and no other. Therefore, I seek clarification of the effect of the motion. Does it create a precedent and does it lay down guidelines that will bind the House and future Speakers?
The Leader of the House said that he felt that each matter of this sort should be dealt with as it arose, but I am not sure that the form of words that he used made it entirely clear that this did not create a precedent. It is not difficult to imagine circumstances in which a Government might seek to curtail the activities of Members of Parliament by claiming that circumstances had arisen that were similar to those of last week. That Government might quote this decision as a precedent. It would be especially difficult if the circumstances were very similar in that the Speaker of the day had to act without consulting the House.
Therefore, I hope that it can be clearly on record, in unequivocal terms, that the motion in the name of the Leader of the House does not create a precedent.

Mr. Tony Banks: One cannot say that about a motion.

Mr. Sims: I hope also that the House will consider the decision in isolation. If that is not possible—it may well not be possible — I can see some attractions in the manuscript amendment. My reservations about it are that, although it serves the purpose that I sought to raise on Friday, this matter should be considered carefully before any definite decision is reached, it has the defect that the rest of the main motion would then fall, including those words that support Mr. Speaker's decision last week. It is important that we should do that, regardless of what else we do.
Parliamentary privileges, as defined in the Bill of Rights, and our rights as Members of Parliament must be exercised responsibly. However, they must also be guarded jealously. They have been so guarded by our predecessors and it is imperative that nothing that we do today should in any way diminish those rights and privileges.

Mr. W. Benyon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek clarification of a matter which is worrying many hon. Members and which has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims). If the House were to pass the manuscript amendment, does that mean that your prohibition would remain in force for the length of the injunction or until the House has reconsidered the matter, whichever is the earlier?

Mr. Speaker: I think that would mean that my prohibition would remain in force until the Select Committee had reported

Mr. Archie Kirkwood: That point of order is useful because the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) was obviously agonising over that issue, as were other hon. Members, including me.
Like the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), I come to today's debate prepared to consider that we were dealing with a very restricted situation. The meaning of the phrase "proceedings of the House" is not normally understood to cover the showing of films in Committee Rooms and


injunctions relating to specific security issues, and I thought that that was such an unusual combination of circumstances that there would be no danger for future occasions in accepting the ruling as it stands.
I have listened carefully to the interesting and valuable debate and have come to the conclusion that the motion moved by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) is right. I shall advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to support that amendment as a first step in the voting proceedings later this evening.
It is of no comfort to me that the House is in this difficult constitutional predicament. Nor is it of any comfort to me that you, Mr. Speaker, were put in the predicament you were last week when you prevented the BBC film from being shown. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) was right—I booked a room to show the film last week and I was to receive a copy of the video cassette for that purpose. At that stage, the only prohibition extant was that issued by the BBC.
I took the view that it was an important part of my duty, as an hon. Member, to scrutinise actions of the Executive which had potentially far-reaching effects and severe financial implications. I did not intend to disseminate anything that I saw. When the High Court injunction came along, and when you issued your instruction, Mr. Speaker, that changed things substantially. I believe that your decision was correct on the basis of the circumstances and the information available to you at the time.

Mr. Onslow: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that when he cancelled his booking of the room he was aware of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, or did the ruling come after the hon. Gentleman's decision not to proceed with the booking?

Mr. Kirkwood: From memory, I think that I withdrew the booking after the High Court injunction and Mr. Speaker's instruction. I think that that was the proper course of action.

Mr. Robin Cook: The hon. Gentleman cancelled his booking on the previous night. Your direction, Mr. Speaker, did not take place until 10.30 the next morning.

Mr. Kirkwood: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting that detail right.

Mr. Onslow: rose—

Mr. Kirkwood: I do not want to make a meal of that as I do not think that it is very relevant. I should, however, like to make it clear that when there is any risk of endangering national security I hope that the whole House agrees that we should want to err on the side of safety or, as the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said, to give the Government the benefit of the doubt.
Today, however, we might inadvertently be consenting to the establishment of far-reaching parliamentary precedents. That being so, the proper course of action is that proposed by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield. There is clearly a category of information which must in all circumstances remain confidential, secret or outwith public knowledge. I hope that the whole House accepts that. How has that principle been implemented in this case? I put it to the Government—in sorrow rather than in anger — that successive Governments, but especially the present Government, appear to have been obsessed by the need to keep everything secret. It is the old so-called section 2 syndrome. The House has only to consider what

has been written in the Daily Telegraph and The Mail on Sunday and to read comments made by the general secretary of the First Division Association to realise that.
If Government policy is so obsessive that it tempts civil servants to question what is being withheld because everything is withheld, the Government will inevitably be the author of their own misfortunes. I am a dedicated advocate of a much freer and more open system of government. Closed and secret administration is detrimental to a properly run democracy. It is also less efficient. A system which has a clear dividing line between what should be confidential and what can help shape and inform public debate would command more public respect and be more likely to work because those who work in it and those who report on it would be much clearer about how far they could legitimately go in releasing information.
Where does the dividing line lie? Having studied all the information that has now been made available about the Duncan Campbell film — I must confess that I am untutored when it comes to signal intelligence satellites — I do not believe that the film prejudiced national security. I cannot commit my right hon. and hon. Friends because they have not seen the film. It seems reasonable, however, that the Government should monitor communications of potentially hostile Governments and international terrorist groups. It is public knowledge that we have a network of ground-based listening stations feeding through to GCHQ. The fact that we are considering similar facilities in space seems logically unexceptional. Moreover, the existence and purpose of any proposed satellites are, I believe, already known to any potential foe.
The fact that signal intelligence satellites exist should be made known to the House or, if that goes too far, to its representatives. I make a clear distinction, however, between the existence and purpose of such satellites and details about their functional capacity, electronic hardware, software and technical specifications, which are obviously highly sensitive and should in no circumstances be revealed publicly or even privately to hon. Members or their representatives.
The major projects statement to the Public Accounts Committee is a system which is supposed to provide protection against abuse. Whatever else comes out of this affair, Mr. Campbell has done the House a service by exposing the inadequacy of that system. If a decision has been made in principle to launch a signals intelligence satellite in a geostatic orbit at 53 deg E, the launch costs and off-the-shelf hardware from America alone must cost about £250 million. If projects such as Zircon can be developed to any stage without the Public Accounts Committee being notified, the present system of scrutiny must be changed.
It is clear that we are in a mess. The line of attack. if attack is the right word, that the Official Opposition have taken is strange. They seem to be accusing the Government of not being patriotic enough. They have accused the Government of being incompetent, which is clearly true, but they have taken a strange and, I believe, wrong tack. We have ended up with the worst possible outcome, mainly because of the Government's incompetence. Everybody is now running for political cover.
Precious little attention is being given to what can be salvaged. It is in the national interest to try to redress any damage that has been done and to try to do better in


future. We now know the facts and circumstances surrounding the Government's decision, as they have been made public through the New Statesman. I believe that the Government want to prevent the film from being shown so that we do not discover how innocuous it is. I suspect that they are afraid to show the film because any viewer would be staggered at the Government making such a colossal mountain out of a security molehill. The Government must come clean and allow the Select Committee on Defence access to the film, even if the PAC cannot see it. If the Government do not do that, I shall remain convinced that they are afraid to show the film.

Mr. William Cash(Stafford): rose—

Mr. Kirkwood: I do not think it right to leave absolutely unfettered discretion about what is or is not secret to the Government or their servants in the Ministry of Defence or at GCHQ. Still less do I think it right to leave the decision to the BBC, to Mr. Duncan Campbell, to the editor of the New Statesman or to any combination of those. In our view, a committee of senior Privy Councillors drawn from the House should be given the task of vetting at the planning stage all defence, surveillance and security projects which are being planned and which will cost more than, say, £20 million to £50 million in total end cost. That committee could then confirm the extent to which the projects should remain secret and the amount of detail that should go into the major projects statement to be scrutinised by the Public Accounts Committee from a financial point of view. That will take the members of that committee inside a curtain of secrecy, but there is no other way to prevent damaging predicaments such as this from recurring in the future.
The Government must urgently review their present predilection for obsessive secrecy. They have given the word a bad name. They must also accept some element of independent scrutiny to guarantee that in future the true interests of national security are not confused with mere party political embarrassment.

Mr. Churchill: I rise, Mr. Speaker, to endorse your order to prohibit certain of the more irresponsible Members of the Opposition from aiding and abetting a Left-wing journalist determined to circumvent a High Court injunction which prohibited the showing of the film on the ground of national security. That journalist, Mr. Duncan Campbell, under contract to the BBC, removed the film from the BBC whose property and copyright it is, without its authority. He refused the BBC's requests to return it. He caused or allowed illegal copies of it to be made. It is a matter for concern that Members of the Opposition should make themselves accomplices to such acts of illegality.
A caveat must be entered about the motion on the Order Paper. It would be wrong for a duly constituted Select Committee of the House, a Committee which has responsibility for overseeing a given Department of Government, to be covered by any High Court injunction, or indeed by such an order as you have made, Mr. Speaker. The Select Committee on Defence, like other departmental Select Committees, has power to send for persons, papers and records, and provided that the BBC

was willing to meet a request from such a Select Committee, as I believe it was last week, there would have been no requirement for a motion in this House.
If we pass this motion tonight, that situation will be changed. We would have to arrange for a meeting of the Select Committee on Defence, if we wished to view the film, to be held in another place or outside the Palace of Westminster. Alternatively, we would have to seek the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, to have your order lifted in the case of our Select Committee. Either course would represent a restriction of the rights and freedoms enjoyed by the Select Committee as it is at present constituted.
I would be loth to see the rights of Select Committees curbed in this way. I hope that the Government will either accept the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) or make it clear that the motion tonight does not, and is not intended to, restrict the powers of Select Committees. If we fail to do that, we may be in danger of making a decision that we would subsequently regret.

Mr. John Morris: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the effect of accepting the amendment of the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) would be to ensure that any Select Committee which wished to do so would be able to see the film in question—and, of course, any Member can, if he so wishes, attend the meetings of any Select Committee?

Mr. Churchill: I appreciate that. Indeed, the manuscript amendment is not entirely satisfactory either, because it does nothing to keep in force the prohibition of Mr. Speaker while the matter is referred to the Committee of Privileges.
While welcoming the decision of the Director-General of the BBC not to screen one film out of the series of six made by Mr. Duncan Campbell, on the ground of national security, I must point out that the BBC has no one but itself to blame for the situation in which it finds itself. We are entitled to ask what business the BBC thinks it has to hire a Left-wing political activist, a man who already has a criminal conviction on matters of national security, and give him a six-figure budget to produce half a dozen programmes on matters dear to his heart — sensitive matters of national security. It is one thing for the BBC to invite Mr. Campbell or anyone else to participate in such a programme, but to elevate him to the status of ringmaster in a Left-wing circus represents a flagrant abuse of licence-payers' money and flies squarely in the face of the corporation's duty to provide political balance.

Mr. Heffer: rose—

Mr. Churchill: It is no use the BBC claiming that the Left—wing bias of Mr. Campbell would be balanced by other participants. It is the conception, the treatment and the control of such material in its production and editing phases that is all-important.

Mr. Heffer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Churchill: I will, in a minute. A particularly sinister aspect of this business is the way in which the good name of the BBC—such as it is—should be abused by inviting former Ministers, former Prime Ministers, permanent secretaries at the Ministry of Defence, Government chief scientists and others to take part in a programme which they would imagine was being made in-house by the BBC, with the normal constraints of balance required by the


BBC, when, in fact, this was a totally different situation, with the programme being inspired and directed by someone on the far Left of British politics.

Mr. Heffer: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that he is now on extremely dangerous ground, especially if we remind him that his grandfather—and it is all on the record—received information about the security of this country, about the Army, the Royal Air Force and the Navy, from civil servants and, quite rightly in my opinion, raised these matters in the House in the interests of the country? If it was good enough for his grandfather, is it not good enough for other people to be prepared, if they think it in the interests of the nation, to do something similar?

Mr. Churchill: The hon. Member makes a fair point.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Withdraw.

Mr. Churchill: I shall not withdraw. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) makes a fair point when he says that the late Sir Winston Churchill in the 1930s received certain information which he brought to the attention of the House in the interests of national defence. I defy anyone to say that it is in the interests of national defence to seek to put in the public domain national intelligence and defence secrets which are of interest to a potential enemy.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Churchill: One of the least lovely aspects of this whole affair is the glee with which certain elements on the Opposition Benches seek to do the work of the enemies of this country by trying to expose the defence and intelligence secrets of our nation. These are antics which, if repeated in the Soviet Union—with which certain Opposition Members seem to think we should be in alliance, rather than with the United States—would earn them 20 years down a salt mine. These elements are intent on undermining the forces of democracy. The Prime Minister has rightly said that these are people who seek to use our freedoms in order to destroy them. The Opposition will make a cardinal error if they believe that people in the country at large want our national secrets uncovered.

Mr. Allan Rogers: The hon. Gentleman may cast aspersions on Opposition Members, but does he remember that the biggest spies in British history were members of his class who went to the same public school, spies such as Burgess, Maclean, Philby and all the others? If he wants to look for traitors in this country he should look to his own party, to his own class, and to his own school.

An Hon. Member: Harrow.

Mr. Churchill: The hon. Gentleman makes a mistake if he believes that they were members of my party, and I did not go to Harrow, nor did I go to Cambridge. I believe that the Government were right to seek a High Court injunction to prevent this film being shown. You, Mr. Speaker, were right in giving time to the House to reflect on the position by preventing the High Court injunction from being circumvented by certain irresponsible people in this House. In our eagerness to support your position, Mr. Speaker, and that of the Government, we must not do anything that might detract in any way from the established rights and freedoms of Select Committees. I

hope that my right hon. and learned Friend, in winding up the debate, will be able to give the House some positive assurance in this respect.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Therehave been a number of misconceptions and a certain amount of confusion. A shall try to put into proper perspective the role of the Public Accounts Committee and my role as Chairman so that people can see the kinds of decisions that we make and the reasons why we make them.
A large part of the Committee's work is involved with the Ministry of Defence because that Department is engaged in very large projects which frequently overrun and overspend. Many of the projects also tend to be a little speculative when they first begin. They are at the frontiers of the state of their particular art, so we spend a little time on them. We ask fairly straightforward questions. We want to know when they are expected to be working, how much they will cost and what the objectives are. We insist on a large degree of monitoring to see how the projects are going and how the money is being spent at each stage of development as the project goes along. Finally, we want to compare the objective with the outcome and the achievements at the end of it all.
Since becoming Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee in 1983 I have been much concerned with the question how to deal with the many secret projects which come before the Committee. One of my early tasks was to satisfy myself by frequent references to the Chevaline case that the lessons had been learnt and that the rules were being observed. I gave many talks on public accounts matters in which I always included the Chevaline lessons because they needed to be absorbed. The Chevaline programme was an improvement to the Polaris missile system which involved extremely heavy expenditure by successive Governments, but for over a decade the House was kept totally in the dark. The programme was finally brought to light in 1980 and the Public Accounts Committee investigated and reported its conclusions in its ninth report of Session 1981–2.
As a result of that experience, it was agreed that the Ministry of Defence would have a major project statement covering every project in excess of £250 million for the lifetime of the project at the time it was begun. There are about 50 such projects. We monitor them, look at them and record their progress. This has been going on for quite some time. We are able to look at the extent of cost overruns, performance criteria and how far they are met.
When the Public Accounts Committee met it took into account a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General. In the ninth report of the Committee of Public Accounts 1981/82, page 29 paragraph 12, the Comptroller and Auditor General said:
it is possible to envisage circumstances in which a Government department might argue that some important information should not be reported to Parliament by C and AG or even disclosed to the Public Accounts Committee for the reasons or on the grounds that to do so would be damaging to the national interest. In such circumstances it would be likely that the C and AG would wish to consult the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee about the handling of such material if other considerations pointed to report.
These are good rules. They can be changed and they can be considered inadequate to meet the circumstances, but these are the rules. I wanted to explain how far these rules,


as we understood them, have been met. What are the rules? Projects of more than £250 million are reported to Committee. No highly classified project, other than the one that came before the Public Accounts Committee, has ever come before me previously. Other aspects of expenditure, such as expenditures that are seriously in excess of estimate, are reported to Committee. If a project is much less than £250 million and is going badly or something is wrong, or if there is some procedural difficulty, it will come before the Public Accounts Committee.
If I was convinced at any time—and I thought of this constantly—that a project had a high classification, I would ask how should I react. Given that kind of responsibility, I can inform the Committee. Obviously, this is the best way to proceed if a project meets other objectives. The Committee has a wide range of experience and a certain healthy scepticism from seeing many dubious projects. We have well-attended meetings and there is a great deal of report reading to be done. We had 52 reports last year, which was a great burden on the Committee. I pay tribute to the hard and dedicated work done by all members of the Committee.
It is very different from my younger days, 20-odd years ago, when I was a member of that Committee and when it was regarded as a sentence that had to be endured. Today there is positive enthusiasm, which I welcome and am grateful for. That is the best way to handle it. There are other matters that might come before the committee where this might not be possible. If matters involving secrecy and highly sensitive classification came before me, I would need to make the inquiries that the Public Accounts Committee would make if it was in session.
The Public Accounts Committee checks first on certification. Once a contractor has a secret project and he knows it is not going to come before the Public Accounts Committee and there is no danger of exposure, he is at Liberty hall. He is able to put on his prices much more easily than if it is a project that sees the light of day very readily. I have to take that into account. So I have to check on certification. Normally we do not spend much time on it, but we have to make sure that the money has gone to the right people for the right projects. At the outset, when the Public Accounts Committee was set up it had to do just that.
In more recent years we have had a greater concern—value for money. We have to make sure that we get economy, efficiency and effectiveness. The economy aspect is fairly straightforward. We want to see that something has been bought for the least money. In a project of the kind that we have been discusing today we would want to make sure that subcontractors had been selected and that they had obtained whatever was necessary for the least amount of money.
A little more difficult is efficiency. We want to know that the best system has been obtained for the money provided. If it costs a little more to get something extra, we would want to make sure that that was the one that was chosen eventually. Effectiveness is the most difficult. We have to make sure that the proposed way is the right way to achieve the objective that the Ministry has in mind.
There have always been ways whereby expenditure has been concealed from Parliament. That should come as no surprise to anybody. As Financial Secretary to the

Treasury I knew of expedients that had been used for years by Defence Secretaries to meet demands for cuts in expenditure which were readily agreed but which, by the use of various strategems, were frequently avoided. I was aware of the trickle feeding of expenditure so that large projects were not properly identified because the money was spent in dribs and drabs. I was aware, too, of the way that Votes could be divided to avoid unwelcome sums appearing. Then there has always been the problem of teeming and lading whereby advancing or delaying the payment of invoices at the end of the financial year could conceal the continuation of spending plans. All those are among the expedients which have been used in the past. So I came to the job with a scepticism that was alive and inquisitive.
The position now is different from the time of Chevaline. We now have the National Audit Act 1983 and the National Audit Office. The Comptroller and Auditor General is now an officer of this House, just as the Clerks of the House, the Serjeant at Arms and the Library staff are. After all, that is what Gladstone intended. The Comptroller and Auditor-General is not chosen by civil servants but chosen jointly by the Prime Minister and the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. He has the staff of the National Audit Office, 900 of them, who operate from within Departments of State checking on expenditure, including expenditure of the highest specification.
In addition, the Comptroller and Auditor General's very auditing function sets him aside from the Government machine, as it has always done. Any auditor requires a certain amount of aloofness or detachment from the activities that he is investigating. The Comptroller and Auditor General has frequently been highly critical of Departments. The changes in his role arising from the National Audit Act go further. He now produces reports to Parliament and the green covers are the result of a painstaking investigation of Government Departments on behalf of all of us. We have, I believe, in Sir Gordon Downey a notable public servant. What is more, much more, he is a servant and an Officer of this House. He acknowledges it, takes pride in it and sustains this role with ability and integrity.
As I said before, no notification of any highly classified expenditure has previously been presented to me. When would it have come before me? It would have come after Treasury sanction had been given and when it was in the Estimates. That is what I assumed. I would be notified as soon as the decision had been made, whether in Cabinet, in Cabinet committee or elsewhere. The amount of £250 million is the amount over the lifetime of a project. So if a Department is only beginning the project but has made the decision to start, I should be notified because the expenditure would be £250 million.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will my right hon. Friend clarify one point for the House so that my hon. Friends understand it clearly? It is that accountability to Parliament on these highly secret projects is not accountability to the Floor; it is not accountability to the Public Accounts Committee; it is accountability to my right hon. Friend himself. It is my right hon. Friend himself who has the specific role of examining these matters and other members of the Committee are precluded from doing so.
Secondly, does not my right hon. Friend accept also that when the Comptroller and Auditor General decides what projects are brought before him, and invariably him alone on these matters, he is not required to decide whether it is a £250 million-plus project or a £10 million project, which is the lower sum which my right hon. Friend need not have referred to him under the system of drip feed on secret contracts? My right hon. Friend simply has to decide, irrespective of the volume or value of the contract, whether he thinks he would otherwise be reporting to Parliament. Does not that place upon him a great responsibility? That is at the very heart of the argument of Duncan Campbell.

Mr. Sheldon: Of course there is a great responsibility on me, but we have a choice of how we deal with highly classified projects. If a matter of such high classification is to go before the whole Public Accounts Committee there are obvious dangers. I have put it before the Committee, and the Committee has accepted, that there may be cases—no case has come to me yet—which will have to be dealt with in the way that I have described. There is no other way. If this were not possible, then I doubt very much if I would hear anything about them. That is an essential and necessary condition. I think that it is reasonable.
The only thing that concerns me is to ensure that I am given such information. I have to make the best judgment. The judgment I have made is that no decision has been made on this project. That is why it did not come before me.
Perhaps I may tell the House of how I first knew of the project. Then I will say what happened after that.

Sir Ian Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman has been most helpful to the House, and I am extremely interested in what he has been saying. But there seems to be a fundamental dilemma. What is the position when a project in excess of £250 million is of such great secrecy and moment that the mere disclosure of its existence by anything other than a code name is possibly of the greatest interest to enemies of the State. What is the position in those circumstances?

Mr. Sheldon: I think that I have mentioned that; it would come before me and it would be left to me to decide how I handled it. If an amount in excess of £250 million were involved, the project would automatically come before me.
Perhaps I may deal with the way in which this was first disclosed to me. Last September I was asked to take part in a television programme dealing with secrecy in government. I had appeared in a number of discussions, programmes and seminars at various times, and I assumed that this would form part of a pattern with which I was familiar. When I discovered that the programme dealt with this project I brought my participation to a close.
I had no previous knowledge of the project, even though I understood the way in which these matters would normally be relayed to me. On inquiry to the Comptroller and Auditor General I learnt that this was a highly classified project on which the only money spent had been on project definition. There was no commitment to proceed and therefore no programme expenditure had been committed.
After this, there followed a number of inquiries on my part—very exhaustive inquiries; I must convince the

House of that—to assure myself that this was the case. I have reason to believe that everything that I am putting to the House is fact. I have mentioned the steps that I have taken previously to assure myself about the promptness of information to me if a decision to proceed was made.
On the different aspect of secrecy, what surprises me, as it must surprise any hon. Member, is why no action was taken earlier. The matter dates back to the middle of October. Matters were known, and I assumed that my involvement would not be required because action elsewhere was obviously going to be taken.
The general point is that the problem with secrecy is that if too many matters are made secret, the currency of secrets is debased. Secrecy is used to avoid political embarrassment to Ministers far more frequently now than it used to be. It conceals matters which need to be kept out of the public view. Certain matters must obviously be kept from the public view. However, so often a civil servant's brief is to ensure that by concealing matters the Minister's appearance at the Dispatch Box is more effective than would otherwise have been the case.
There tend to be more disaffected civil servants now and fewer civil servants are prepared to be used in that way. The danger is that a barrier may exist between important secrets and convenient secrets. That is an important barrier because important secrets are important and need to be kept secret. The barrier must be redefined to ensure proper security to which I believe we are all entitled.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: There are many important issues to be considered in the course of the debate. However, they are simple issues. The allegation made by the originator of the film and the article was that Parliament was, by implication, being kept unconstitutionally and unlawfully in the dark about the project. No one who heard the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, could sustain that argument any longer.
An allegation was also made that the film was not prejudicial to national security. In response to that, we have the authority no less than that of the Leader of the Opposition. That is probably the best possible authority in the view of Tory Members.
Hon. Members have asked why the film was not prohibited earlier.

Mr. McNamara: Is the hon. Gentleman convinced that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has seen the film?

Mr. Stanbrook: I am sorry, but I did not hear the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. McNamara: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has seen the film?

Mr. Stanbrook: All we know is what we have read in the newspapers. The reports have not been denied by the Leader of the Opposition. I would have supposed that he would deny what was attributed to him if it was untrue. It was said that the right hon. Gentleman agreed that this was a matter of national security which should not be revealed. It would be interesting to know whether any


Opposition Member who has seen the film wishes to proclaim publicly that the film is proper material to be shown and not a matter of national security.

Mr. Allan Rogers: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Stanbrook: No, I am sorry. I have dealt with that point.
Why was the film not prohibited earlier? There are legal difficulties involved, which I can appreciate. It appears that the film was at least partly the property of Mr. Duncan Campbell and he was the originator of the article or at least supplied the information. He had a proprietorial interest.
An injunction was rightly directed against Mr. Campbell, his servants or agents. However, that injunction apparently did not apply against the New Statesman. We do not know whether the New Statesman had knowledge of the injunction, but it cannot be said to be Mr. Campbell's servant or agent or acting under his instruction. That is one of the aspects of the case that deserves fuller consideration.
An injunction obtained against a potential leaker of national security secrets should be effective not only against the original perpetrator but against all those who might carry out his purpose in leaking state secrets with knowledge of the injunction. As I understand it, to be effective at present an injunction to restrain the leakage of a state secret must be taken out against each and every potential publisher. There must also be evidence of his intention. That is too much to expect the Law Officers' Department to achieve. I hope, therefore, that the Government will now act swiftly to fill that gap in the law and so prevent a recurrence of this disaster—because that is what I believe it to be. In a matter of top national security it should be possible, when an injunction has been taken out, for a copy to be served upon all those who might be considered liable and willing to publish. That notice should be sufficient to deter publication.
Another argument that has been raised is that if the article has been published already, why bother to stop its general publication? That argument betrays a naivety about national security which should not be acceptable. The answer is that national security is too important a subject to be broadcast in that way. The importance of the document is a matter for the judgment of people who are better qualified in these matters than I. However, I accept that leaks should be minimised even after they have occurred in one form, channel or newspaper.
The aspect of the case that interests me most as a constitutional lawyer is that revealed by Mr. Speaker's ruling. I was a little unhappy when I first read the motion before the House. I thought it meant that the House was being asked to deny to itself one of its most cherished privileges—the right to regulate its affairs without interference from the courts. On closer examination, I found that the motion renounces that right only in respect of a specific matter covered by a particular injunction. It is certainly right and proper for the House as a whole to decide not to assert its undoubted privilege in a particular case for as long as the injunction remains in effect. That is the traditional practice. It is the custom of the House not to act contrary to a matter that is the subject of an injunction by the High Court, not because it must or because constitutionally it is bound, but because good

government is achieved in that way. An injunction issued by the High Court, especially in a matter of national security, is something which the House would not want to challenge.
The traditional practice has been followed hitherto and should be followed in specific cases when the House knows what it is doing. No question of a precedent therefore arises, because each individual case would have to be judged on its merits. However, the actions of the House in a corporate capacity differs from the actions of individual Members who may choose to act in their own interests. As the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said, hon. Members may choose to act in pursuance of their duty to inform themselves on behalf of their constituents on any matter without the consent of the House. That is an entirely different matter.

Mr. Buchan: Good God! The hon. Gentleman would have us all in uniform.

Mr. Stanbrook: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to challenge my understanding of the law, I hope that he will make it on that ground. I suggest that the traditional practices that have been observed hitherto should be followed, and that the procedure that we are invited to adopt this evening is perfectly correct and in accordance with precedent.
The High Court may properly enjoin an hon. Member or a collection of hon. Members not to act unlawfully. It is the privilege of individual hon. Members of the House of Commons—.

Mr. Buchan: Or of a number of hon. Members.

Mr. Stanbrook: Individual Members, or a number of Members acting in their individual capacities and not as the House of Commons, have privilege applying to everything they say in the Chamber. They do not have that privilege outside this Chamber. If an hon. Member or a group of hon. Members wish to show a film which is the subject of an injunction and wished to view it by arrangement with, for example, a local cinema, I think that they could properly be restrained from doing so by the High Court. That answers the question posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). If his Committee sought to see the film outside the precincts of the House, it could be covered by a High Court injunction. The Committee would not be entitled to claim parliamentary privilege, because its members would be outside the House.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: On the contrary, if the Select Committee was meeting officially it would be able to view it, because a Select Committee of this House can convene in any place.

Mr. Stanbrook: That is a matter of constitutional law. My opinion is that it could not, but that is a matter of opinion. Showing the film within the jurisdiction of the House of Commons is an entirely different matter. The privilege is that of the whole House. If the House wishes to see the film mentioned in the motion, or wishes to allow all or any of its Members to see it within the precincts of the House, it can do so properly and lawfully despite any High Court injunction.
Over the centuries the House of Commons has never exercised its power arbitrarily in this way. Mr. Justice Kennedy was acting wisely and constitutionally when he refused an injunction against individual Members who


wished to see the film on Thursday. He was right to say that if the hon. Members concerned wished to see it, it was a matter for decision by the House itself, and he refused to exercise his jurisdiction. Had he done so, it might well have raised an important constitutional issue. He put the ball back into our court.
It is for the whole House to decide whether to act contrary to an injunction. It is not within the power of any one or more hon. Members to assert a privilege which belongs to the House as a whole. Therefore, Mr. Speaker's action in ruling against the showing of the film presented the House with this opportunity to decide the matter, and it is wholly within the jurisdiction of the House to do so. I entirely agree with the course taken by Mr. Speaker, because it was the proper course.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing has tabled an amendment to the motion which suggests that the motion
does nothing that might impair the rights of Select Committees.
In one way that is acceptable because the position will be the same tomorrow as it was yesterday. Of course, that cannot mean that if the House passes this motion amended in that way a Select Committee could disregard a resolution of the whole House. Every Select Committee is subject to the will of this House and derives its authority from the House. The Standing Orders give them their powers and responsibilities. If this House says, as it will purport to do if this motion is passed, that this film shall not be seen—

Mr. Allan Rogers: Why have the Government imposed a three-line Whip?

Mr. Stanbrook: —it must follow that the Select Committee which is to see it may not see it, because to do so would be contrary to the rules of the House. My right hon. Friend's amendment is a non sequitur. That view was reinforced by the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) who speaks for the Opposition on legal matters. He said that the effect of the amendment would be to cancel all that has gone before.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: I listened with care to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. On more than one occasion he sought quite firmly to give the impression that, notwithstanding the fact that the House as a whole, if it votes in a certain way, would not see this film, a Select Committee could still do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) is arguing the opposite.

Mr. Stanbrook: I did not get the impression that the Leader of the House gave such a reply. I think he said— if he took my advice, but I am quite sure that he did not—that the position remains the same, and that Select Committees have the rights conferred on them by Standing Orders in accordance with the practice of the House. If that includes the right of this House to determine its own procedures and behaviour, and if a resolution of the House were to say that something shall not be done, it is not open to the members of a Select Committee to say that it shall be done by them.
Finally, I shall refer to the manuscript amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). It is quite wrong to assume that this is an honourable and proper way out of the problem before us, because the effect of adopting that amendment which

cancels all the rest would be to say that Mr. Speaker's authority, which was exerted for a special purpose and for a limited time and had temporary effect, shall remain and that the House itself shall not make a decision on the matter until after a comparatively lengthy reference to the Select Committee on Privileges. That process could take a considerable time.

Mr. Cormack: Surely the House is best served in these important matters by the Select Committee of Privileges. To refer the matter to that Committee is to refer it to the House's appointed custodian of these matters.

Mr. Stanbrook: Which has the better authority to speak on behalf of the House—the House itself, or one of its Committees?

Mr. Tony Banks: Matters come back here for debate.

Mr. Stanbrook: I agree on the matter of whether the House should automatically as a matter of custom comply with a High Court injunction. That cannot be questioned. The extent of the House's privilege in that respect is a proper matter to be referred to the Committee of Privileges. To say that this specific, urgent and important issue should not be decided here and now by the House is wrong. By all means let the Committee of Privileges be asked to look at this general question, but we must not give it the authority that we possess to make a decision on this matter. For those reasons, we should pass the motion unamended.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am sorry that this motion has been placed before the House in its present terms, and I hope that the House will refrain from converting it into a resolution but will resort to passing the written amendment referred to at an earlier stage and make use of the advice that ought to be sought upon a profound matter of this kind from the Select Committee of Privileges which the House has for that very purpose.
The motion, as it stands on the Order Paper, raises at least three separate though interconnected matters of grave concern and constitutional importance. I want to refer to them briefly. The first is that it assumes that the precincts of the House enjoy total immunity and privilege. If that were not the assumption made by the Government, the motion would be quite unnecessary and nugatory. It assumes, in other words, that an act which is unlawful outside the precincts of this House is lawful or, at any rate, immune from legal proceedings, if it takes place inside the precincts.
There is no question whatsoever as to the absolute privilege which is enjoyed by the House when it is going about its business. The House as a House and the Committees of the House sitting as Committees of the House enjoy and must enjoy total and absolute privilege: nothing which is done or said in them can be called in question in any other place. That is not open to discussion or to dispute. It is a principle which every hon. Member of this House would defend. We extend it, however, to an exorbitant degree when we say that just because something is said or done in the precincts of this House it ought to be deemed to be covered by the same absolute privilege and immunity from legal process.
We enjoy the privileges which we have in order to exercise them on behalf of those whom we represent. I cannot believe that it could be in the interests of the public


that acts which have been properly declared unlawful if committed at large could be committed within the precincts of the House under cover of a kind of penumbra of privilege supposedly diffused from the Chamber itself. The motion, therefore, and the assumption which underlies it, confuse the House and its proceedings with the premises in part of which the House conducts those proceedings. I believe that that is a matter which ought to be clearly established.
A reference which was made by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), in a very important earlier contribution to this debate, confirms me in what I am saying. When the right hon. Gentleman was looking for an instance of privilege enjoyed outside the Chamber and outside the proceedings of the House, he mentioned the communication with which the Sandys case was concerned. That was a communication which was made right away from the precincts of the House, but was caught because, in the view of the House, it bore upon the proceedings of the House, because there a proceeding of the House was involved—the tabling of a written question—and the House decided on that occasion that its privileges were involved and ought to be defended.
The second problematic matter which this motion raises is that, having assumed that an injunction and the powers of the courts are ousted in the precincts of the Palace of Westminster, the Government proceed to eliminate that privilege in a specific context and for a specific purpose. They want to pass a resolution to say, "Nevertheless, although an injunction does not have effect in the precincts of the House, such and such things prohibited by an injunction shall not be done in the precincts of the House."
It seems to me a very grave matter, where there exists a privilege of this House, if the House, by resolution, should make exemptions from it. It is of the essence of privilege that we all enjoy it and that we all enjoy it without exemption.
One often hears references to privilege being abused bat, of course, privilege is not used unless it is abused. The hon. Member who uses his privilege to say in this House things which he could not say outside it and which perhaps no one else in this House wants him to say is using his essential privilege. If once we begin to say that a resolution of the House can take away or can limit or can define or can specify what privileges may or may not be exerted, we have laid an axe to the roots of privilege itself. Although therefore I believe that the underlying assumption behind the motion, as regards the extent of privilege, is itself mistaken, nevertheless I consider it erroneous that the House, having assumed such a privilege, should proceed by resolution to curb and limit it in a specific matter at the suggestion of the Government.
The third matter, Mr. Speaker—I am relieved that you have returned to the Chair, because it concerns yourself and you have been generous and frank in placing yourself at the disposal of the House so that it could be debated—relates to your decision, as you expressed it, to ensure
that nothing should occur to prejudice the position until the House itself had an opportunity to discuss the matter." [Official Report, 22 January 1987; Vol 108, c. 1025.]
Old Mr. Lenthall has been invoked more than once already this afternoon, but I think that old Mr. Lenthall

is in place here. Of course, if it comes to the knowledge of the Chair that the House intends to consider a certain matter, it is part of the functions of the Chair, which are often exercised by the Chair in Committee, so to proceed that the House has the opportunity to do what it is known to intend to do.
As it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, the difficulty about the decision which you took arises from this: how it came to your knowledge that the House would wish to have before it such a motion as we are debating this afternoon. It was Lenthall who said that he had not
eyes to see nor ears to hear but as this House might direct.
There is nothing which this House had done or said which could have conveyed to your ears the knowledge or the presumption that we would wish either to assume an extended privilege covering the precincts as a whole or to limit the exercise of that extended privilege, as this motion does.
I feel, therefore, that the Chair, in making the order which it did on that occasion, was not in fact exercising the function of preserving the opportunities and safeguarding the discretion of the House, for I do not believe it can be claimed that the House itself is in a position to take a decision extending its own privileges. Our privileges—I think this is commonly accepted—rooted as they are in history and in precedent, are not capable of being further extended by ourselves. In so far, therefore, as the motion implies an extension of those privileges or may do so, that with great respect, Mr. Speaker, is not a matter for itself not an action which the House has it any longer in its power to take.
All these considerations lead me to the conclusion that the issues that have been raised by this event have turned out to be far more serious, far more far-reaching in their implications, than perhaps anyone, even members of the Government themselves, realised a few days ago. It is precisely in such circumstances that to avoid error we have by custom resorted to the use of the Select Committee of Privileges, a Committee which can at leisure, taking due account and debating among itself, thrash out and examine all the aspects which are tied up in this single motion. I hope, therefore, that the House will not dispose of the matter by passing this motion, or indeed the amendment to it which virtually repeats those elements of the motion itself which are open to exception, but will use its well-tried method of referring to the Select Committee of Privileges a matter of such deep and important moment.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), who has deservedly earned the reputation of a great House of Commons man, did the House a fine service with that speech. I raise what is the first, but by no means the last, voice from the Conservative Benches at least, firmly in favour of the motion of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn).
This debate was billed as some sort of clash over issues involving press freedom, defence and security. In fact it has turned out to be a first-class House of Commons occasion, because rightly, from the moment when the Father of the House intervened—so fortunately diverted from the Tea Room where he intended to go—the House, with its customary instinctive feel, began to get the message that there was something up of considerable


importance to the future destiny of the House of Commons and Parliaments which would be here long after all of us.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield was right to say that this is fundamentally a constitutional issue. We begin with a look at the wording of the Government's somewhat flawed motion. It starts with your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and it has been common ground throughout the debate—I share that common ground—that you were right in your judgment of the individual case in the individual circumstances of that moment. The trouble with the Government's motion, particularly its last 14 words, is that it sets a dangerous precedent, a precedent that could make the House how before the injunction of the courts in circumstances different from those that we are discussing.
Some of my right hon. Friends in their militant speeches have been up in arms, and rightfully so, against the New Statesman and Mr. Duncan Campbell. It is not fanciful to foresee a day when there is a reversal of roles, with an extremely Left-wing Government in power and a Right-wing newspaper standing up for what it believes to be a just cause. The courts could impose, in the name of national security, an instant genuflection in the shape of an injunction that would silence Parliament. This could be a dangerous precedent.
I share the mood of the House in saying that the only sensible move that we can make is to send this matter to the expertise of the Select Committee of Privileges.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does my hon. Friend agree that another great advantage of that course is that the House would not need to divide?

Mr. Aitken: I frequently see the merit in not having Divisions, and on this occasion it would remove any possibility of questioning, limiting or extending Mr. Speaker's ruling, so I take my hon. Friend's point.
The secondary issue in the debate is the role of Select Committees. Even after the four—or was it five?—interventions with answers from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that sounded as though they were in the evasive tense—most uncharacteristically—I did not quite understand how the status quo of Select Committees was to be preserved and what his assurances meant. All I can say is that I cannot believe that the status quo of the Select Committees is to be placed in the Alice-in-Wonderland situation in which they are prohibited from discussing certain matters, seeing certain films or listening to certain broadcasts in the precincts of the House but can go down the road and outside the House constitute themselves as Select Committees and be completely in order. This is another area of doubt, muddle and confusion.
We have exposed certain fundamental worries that, seen with the sweep of history and the past, and the dangerous precedents that could be set in the future, should make us hesitate for an eternity before we vote for the Government's motion. I shall not do so, and if given an opportunity I will support the amendment of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I shall be brief. We have had a confusion in this debate by getting two things mixed up. First, there are the rights and privileges

of the House, and I am glad to notice that increasing numbers of hon. Members on both sides of the House are coming round to the point of view that, to protect rights and privileges, especially those of Back Benchers, the matter should go to the Select Committee of Privileges. That is exactly right.
Secondly, and related to this point, is what has happened to the film outside the House. This is just as important, and I hope that in discussing the one item, we do not mix up the two. I hope that we shall have a debate about what has happened to the film and what has happened to the New Statesman and Duncan Campbell, after the police went to his house and took the documents. We have to concern ourselves with the rights and privileges, but we must also be concerned with the rights and privileges of the people who put us here. I do not accept the view of the Prime Minister and some Conservative Members that it was a terrible thing that the film should have been produced in the first place, and terrible that there should have been an article in the newspaper because it was a Left-wing newspaper.
Some of us are not convinced that the New Statesman is as Left-wing as it used to be. There was a time when we would have accepted that it was a Left-wing newspaper—I shall not get into that argument—but we were right in not getting the two matters discussed together. I want an assurance from my Front Bench that it will seek. as early as possible, a debate not merely about our privileges and rights, but about what has happened to the film, and the fact that the BBC has been prevented from showing it, and about what has happened to the New Statesman.
What has happened to that newspaper can happen to any other Left-wing journal, genuine or otherwise, and every middle of the road journal, and that is the beginning of the police state. The attack on, and entry into, newspaper offices is the beginning of an authoritarian system. It is what happens in all authoritarian states, whether they are Left-wing or Right-wing. The House must equally concern itself with that.
Any Government that can table a motion accepting the idea that a judge can determine what happens in the House should be aware that such ideas are allied to the police state. It means that the courts, under the control of the Government, are determining what is happening in the elected forum, and that is a dangerous line for the Government to take. I hope that the people understand precisely what is happening.
We did not get our rights easily. They were not handed to us by the Almighty. He might have had a slight hand in it, but on the whole, we got our rights through people fighting for them. All rights, whether it is the right to have a Parliament, to have elected representatives with pay, to have Parliaments elected every few years, or to have a free press, were not handed to us on a plate. They had to he fought for. All our rights have been fought for by people outside the House, and they have merely made it possible for us to represent and protect them inside the House. In protecting our privileges, we are arguing for the rights of the people outside.
I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) made a first-class speech, as did the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell). I have heard marvellous speeches in the House tonight.
If the Government have any sense at all, they will not push their motion to a vote but will accept the manuscript amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for


Chesterfield to enable the matter to go to the Committee of Privileges. I also urge my right hon. Friends to get a pledge from the Government that we should have an early debate about what has happened over the New Statesman, the film and the need to put up a struggle to preserve our rights and freedoms in Britain.

Mr. Timothy Raison: Like the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) I did not intend to take part in this debate, but neither did I intend to spend the time having tea.
I came to this debate with two firm views—one, that you, Mr. Speaker, acted entirely properly in what you have done; the other, that the security of this country is of the greatest importance and that the New Statesman was wrong to publish the article by Duncan Campbell. I believe that its motive in doing so had nothing to do with parliamentary control; it was entirely to do with a form of titillation. Nevertheless, I have listened to this debate this afternoon and doubts have been thrown up in my mind about the course proposed by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
I believe that those doubts are inevitably connected with the position of Select Committees. I do not happen to be one of the most extreme partisans of Select Committees. I believe they do a good job—I have been before Committees on a number of times as a Minister, and I believe the way in which they carry out their work is generally fair and that they are useful—but I have never taken the view that Select Committees should be entitled to receive information that is not available to the rest of the House. Anything that is available should be available to all hon. Members.
Over the past few years, the Select Committees have acquired certain powers, and I think that we should recognise that. There is some ambiguity about whether those powers would be left should the Government's motion be carried. I also believe that the wording of the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) would also lead to some ambiguity. What would be the position of the Select Committee? Could it see the film? Perhaps it could see the film off the premises, unless an injunction taken in the courts prevented it. It would be absurd for a Select Committee to leave the House in order to see the film.
It may be possible for the Committee to summon an unwilling provider of the film—the BBC or whoever—and to go to the House to seek leave to summon the film to be shown. I do not know how the rest of the House would react to that. I would have thought that in the light of your ruling. Mr. Speaker, and if the Government's motion was carried, the House would say that the film was not available to the Committee. There is some ambiguity about that; it must be cleared up, as it is very unsatisfactory.
Another important aspect of this debate is whether or not your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and the motion moved by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, could constitute a precedent. It has been argued that the motion contains specific wording about a particular event and there is no generality, but nevertheless precedent always arises from a single action. We cannot be sure what line would be taken if a similar event cropped up again. It is

obvious that what we have here is a bit of a muddle, but it is a muddle on an important matter. That is the flavour of today's debate.
What is the answer? I know that when my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, winds up he will approach the matter with great care and wisdom. I have the highest regard for him. The best advice that one could offer the Government is to accept that the matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges. That has been the tenor of today's debate.
If the House decided to refer the matter to the Select Committee of Privileges, if the Leader of the House, could assure us that, in the interim your ruling, Mr. Speaker, would continue to apply, I would be perfectly happy. That ruling would continue until the Committee had been able to report to the House and as long as the injunction lasted. That would be a reasonable decision. If any other decision were reached on the matter tonight, it would ignore the whole tenor of the debate. The matter should be dealt with by the Committee of Privileges and I hope that the Leader of the House will accept that.

Mr. Robin Cook: I differ from the opening remarks of the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) and other hon. Members who said that they had not intended to make a speech today. I had intended to make a speech, and I am duly grateful for the opportunity to do so.
Having sat through the debate, there is one point that I should like to take up from an earlier speech. I want to refer to the thoughtful and serious speech offered to the House by the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), because he made a point that should be firmly nailed to the floor as a fallacy. He argued that in voting for the motion we were not necessarily creating a precedent, and he wished for an assurance that in voting for the motion the House was not creating a precedent.
It is, of course, open to any future House, or any future Speaker, to choose to disregard the precedent and to select from precedents in the Standing Orders or in the Journal of the House. What we cannot disguise from ourselves is that if we voted for the motion we would be creating a precedent which may or may not be used to guide future Speakers. That is unanswerable, and the House should be cautious about this.
In one of the morning papers a Minister—on an unattributable basis—said that if the motion was carried it would be "a useful precedent". It is precisely for that reason that I hope the House will not rush into a decision tonight.
I shall be brief, as I know that the House wishes shortly to reach a conclusion. I shall not spend too much time on the motion. It certainly does not survive the interplay of free intellect and the application of common sense. It invites the House to agree not to watch the film, although many hon. Members have already read the transcript. It invites hon. Members to pretend that they do not know any information, although that information has been widely disseminated to their constituents through the daily newspapers. It invites hon. Members to agree that they will not watch the film in the Palace of Westminster, although they may watch it outside the House. It is a farrago of nonsense.
It is a matter of regret that the Leader of the House had to move the motion. In a spirit of friendship I acknowledge


the right hon. Gentleman's robust common sense which so often enlivens the debates in the Chamber. It is a shame that he has had to defend this piece of nonsense. I have listened to the right hon. Gentleman on a number of occasions, and I have sat in Committee with him on the Finance Bill. One certainly gets to know other hon. Members when one is in a Committee on the Finance Bill. I have never seen him so miserable and so unhappy as he was tonight when he proposed the motion.
I shall not add to the right hon. Gentleman's misery by dissecting the motion, but I shall seek to consider it in the context of two wider issues of principle which have dominated the debate. The first is the relationship between this House and the courts. We cannot duck that issue, because in the motion there is a specific reference to a film banned by injunction. It would have been better if the motion had contained no reference to an injunction. If it had been a simple motion naming a specific film I would have been happier, though I would not necessarily have voted for it. I am unhappy because the motion clearly sets out to recognise the authority of the courts over the proceedings of this House. That is at the heart of the dilemma.
It is clear that the injunction granted by the courts and the injunction referred to in the motion does not run within the Palace of Westminster in terms of proscribing the watching of the film. If it did, the Government could not explain why they felt it necessary to return the next day to seek a specific injunction against me and 13 other named Members, which the very same judge, quite properly, threw out within one minute. He did so because he was respecting a long tradition in which the courts have not sought to exercise their powers inside the Chamber.
The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) made an extraordinary speech in which he appeared to be giving away the privileges of the House hand over fist. I want to point out to the hon. Gentleman that there is a full chapter in "Erskine May" on the history of Parliament and the courts showing how Parliament has asserted its independence of court jurisdiction. It is clear from that chapter that the exemption from the jurisdiction of the courts is not confined to proceedings of the House, either in the Chamber or in a formally constituted committee. It states:
For such purposes the House can 'practically change or practically supersede the law'. This privilege is not confined to the chamber in which the House sits. For instance, it has been held to extend to the sale, within the precincts of the House, of intoxicating liquor without a licence".
I regret that that profound principle of constitutional law degenerated into an example from the licensing law. However, the principle is clearly established and has been well accepted over the decades.
It is a matter of surprise that the Attorney-General, who, as we read this week, is the longest serving Attorney-General this century, and who therefore has perhaps had the greatest opportunity to master the principles of constitutional law, chose to go to the courts to seek an injunction that would breach the long tradition and convention of the relationship between Parliament and the courts and had to be reminded of the tradition by the judge rather than by anybody in his own chambers. We should not lose sight of the fact that the Government attempted to use the courts against named Members of Parliament who were seeking to go about what was certainly public business in a spirit, as they conceived it, of conformity with

their duties as Members of Parliament. It was only after that failed that the Attorney-General then turned to you, Mr. Speaker, and obtained the ruling that was served upon me on Thursday, and it was subsequent to that event that the motion was tabled for debate today.
The second issue of principle raised by the motion and by today's debate is the right of hon. Members to have access to information on which to carry out the task with which we are charged in the constitution, which is the important task of scrutinising the Executive.
I agree with the hon. Members who have said that this has been a splendid debate which has shown the House of Commons at its finest. It has been a good debate and there has been a degree of cross-party agreement, certainly in the latter stages. However, it is sad that there should be any doubt about what the legislature will do with the motion at the end of the debate. One can make certain shaming comparisons with other legislatures and the way in which they would behave if confronted with such a motion. II such a motion was tabled before Congress, there would be uproar. The debate might last longer than our debate, but there would be no doubt as to what the majority of both sides of Congress would do with a motion that suggested that they should not see a film that might be politically embarrassing to the Executive and which the Executive did not want them to see.
To understand the enormity of the proposition, it is necessary to set it against the events of the past the days. Unlike the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), I believe that important questions of press freedom have been raised by the conduct of the Government in the past five days, and by the motion. It was only last week that the Government instructed the Treasury solicitor to write to the editor of every daily newspaper seeking an assurance that they would not report what the New Statesman had already printed. The final paragraph of the letter stated:
Please let me have an assurance by midday Friday, 23 January 1987 failing which the Lord Advocate will consider taking legal action against you.
That letter was sent to a Scottish editor. It is a bizarre instruction, because no crime is committed by failing to give an assurance requested by the Treasury solicitor, at least not yet. It is disturbing that the Government saw no impropriety in approaching editors to seek an assurance that they would not report a matter that was already in the public domain.
Another issue of press freedom intimately bound up with the debate is the arrival of special branch officers at the office of the New Statesman on Saturday. I concur with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) that there is room for debate as to how Left-wing the New Statesman may be. Indeed, it last sprang into national prominence shortly before Christmas when its present editor urged the Labour party to abandon its policy of nuclear disarmament. 'The previous editor achieved a moment of notoriety within the Labour movement in 1983 when he advised the electors in half the constituencies in England to vote alliance rather than Labour. By anybody's standards, it is a newspaper within the mainstream of political opinion.

Mr. Allan Rogers: It is drowning in it.

Mr. Cook: Yes, it is drowning in the mainstream of political opinion.
If such an independent newspaper can be visited by the special branch and turned over by it — I assure the


House that it was not simply Duncan Campbell's drawers that it was looking through; it went through the files and offices of everybody in the New Statesman—no paper in the land is safe from such a development. I hope that the events of last weekend will not also be regarded by the Government as a "useful precedent."
It is against the background of those events that we have to judge the full enormity of the events before us. The motion asks us to agree not to have access to the information contained in the film. Worse than that, given that we all know what is in the film, and that most of our constituents know what is in it, the motion realistically invites us to pretend that we do not know the information. That is insupportable. I find it difficult to accept that Mr. Duncan Campbell, who produced the film and wrote the article, was seeking to damage national security. I have read the transcript. There are few technical details contained in it. There is no discussion of the specifications or of how the satellite will operate. I have, by comparison, leafed through the book entitled "The Ties That Bind" which was published in 1985. It is replete with technical details as to how such things operate.

Mr. Tony Banks: In support of what my hon. Friend is saying about Mr. Duncan Campbell's intentions, may I draw his attention to page 17 of the script, where Mr. Campbell says:
Obviously we can't broadcast the exact technical details of what Zircon's targets will be.

Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend has anticipated a point that I wished to develop.
To return to the book entitled "The Ties That Bind", I must confess that, despite my enthusiasms for the subject and my anxiety to prepare a decent contribution for today's debate, I found my attention constantly wandering from the book, which is of a technical character that I could not comprehend. I must put it to the House that if it is possible for the Government to allow a thick volume of technical specifications to be published, what is it in the transcript that makes it such a threat to national security? It is not good enough to argue that one breach of national security does not justify another. We are talking about the same breach. That argument is dangerously close to saying that there is one law on national security for Allen and Unwin when it publishes a respectable tome, and another law for Duncan Campbell and the New Statesman when they wish to produce an article that is critical of and politically embarrassing to the Government.
The thrust of that programme is not about the specifications of the satellite, but about the contention of Duncan Campbell that the Government broke an undertaking to the Public Accounts Committee. I accept that there are two views on whether the undertaking has been broken. I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) that, having applied my mind to this over the last week, and having sought advice that is available to me, I am inclined to take the view that on balance the undertakings to the Committee were not broken, but that is not the point of principle.
Duncan Campbell had convinced himself that those undertakings had been broken, and through the programme he sought to show that the undertakings had been set aside by the Government, who have sought to

conceal this project. It is not a sufficient reason to suppress the programme on the grounds that he was wrong in claiming that those undertakings had been broken. If he was convinced that Parliament had been deceived, he had every right to prepare a programme which set out why Parliament had been deceived and why he had come to that conclusion, and we have every right to receive that information and to have access to the programme in which it is contained.
I believe that the motion should be thrown out, even on its merits. However, it is not merely its merits that require the House to decline to pass the motion. The House should decline to pass the motion because of the wider questions that it begs concerning press freedom, and most important of all, the access of the House to the information that it needs. Were this motion to be passed tonight, it would tilt dangerously further the balance of power between this Chamber and the Government. For that reason, I believe that it is imperative that the House refrains from that step tonight and sends this issue to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: When I expressed the hope to catch you eye, Mr. Speaker, I imagined that I would be taking part in an acrimonious debate. Having sat through the entire debate, what is fascinating is the way in which the House has risen to the heights to which it rises on all too few occasions, through your good offices, Mr. Speaker, and has done itself a great service. I found a renewal of faith in Parliament as a place where sound common sense emerges if we listen to each other for long enough.
Mr. Duncan Campbell's article, let alone his film, should not have merited a debate, nor should it have been considered by the Government as being anything other than the kind of low-level technological rubbish that the article is. What is surprising about the article is that it has major inaccuracies, which caused me to wonder why the editor of the New Statesman bothered to publish it after he had commissioned it.
One has only to look at the introduction to the article, where Mr. Duncan Campbell says that there has been an expenditure of £500 million, and to have heard the right hon. Member, for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, saying that there was no such expenditure, to realise its lack of value. The Government could have checked on that and said in public that Mr. Campbell's other assertion at the beginning of his article that the satellites would be positioned over the Soviet Union was a load of technical rubbish.
Further on in his article Mr. Campbell states that the United Kingdom has no forces further east than the Gulf and therefore there is no need for a British communications satellite there. That hardly does justice to a man who claims technical accuracy as the basis for his article. He does not seem to have heard of Hong Kong.
Much of what Mr. Campbell put in his article has been freely available in magazines such as Aviation News, and much of that which he quotes has been well known in the world of technology for the last 10 years. If we had made some sensible, straightforward, simple inquiries, we would soon have found that there was nothing here which should have been brought to the level of a major debate in the House.
I have met Mr. Duncan Campbell. All of us occasionally carry chips on our shoulders, but he carries breeze blocks on his, probably brought about by the fact that he had always hoped to join the intelligence community, but I understand that wiser counsel prevailed and he was turned away from that opportunity.
Once again we are up against the question of the overwhelming envelope of secrecy with which we bind ourselves too often. There is no need for us to pretend that devices such as intelligence satellites do not exist, that it would be a good idea for us to have one. The Russians and the Americans have them, and there is free information available about them. We should ensure that we do not discuss the capability or specification of those satellites, but here again we touch, as we do far too rarely in the House, on the concept of and need to practise freedom of information. Governments in power do not like that concept, but the Opposition dearly love it. Surely there can be unity on both sides of the House to downgrade the amount of secrecy that surrounds so much of the workings that we try to pursue here.
I should like to endorse the marker put down by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), to make sure that Select Committee's interests are preserved, but I hope, Mr. Speaker, that through the service that you have rendered to the House, through this debate we will be able to move to a point where there is no need for a Division, but there is a need for both sides of the House to agree that the Committee of Privileges has a special part to play to conclude our debate.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I shall vote for the manuscript amendment that was put forward in a remarkable first hour of the debate, when the House of Commons was at its best and new ideas were brought to our notice. I hope that the media—who are fond of saying what happens at Prime Minister's Question Time —will report it for the excellent debate that it has been.
I shall raise two or three points. I will resist the temptation that my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) put in my mind when he was talking about the filing cabinets and drawers at the New Statesman that had been looked into by special branch, and I wondered what special branch would have found if it had looked into the drawers at the Sun newspaper.
The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) has great technical knowledge which is denied most of us. What he said raised questions about the article. I can make no judgment on that, but it led me to ask myself what the nature of the briefing was that was given to my right hon. Friends in the Shadow Cabinet, who were right to go and take it. When the Prime Minister tetchily said that she was considering not giving a security briefing to the Leader of the Opposition about the Wright affair, I did not know what she was talking about, because no such briefings take place. Whenever Governments consult the Opposition it is because the Government are in trouble on an issue and they want to give the Opposition a briefing on Privy Council terms. As far as I have been able to find out, the press were given almost the same briefing on the same day as the Opposition, and the informed press the following day contained information about the same sort of thing — the need to get out from under the American umbrella and the cost factor. They are matters that ought to be raised on the Floor of the House.
I shall put two points to the Minister, and since he is not here, perhaps they can be brought to his notice. If the Government wanted to get to a newspaper in the way that they did, why did they not use the D notice system? I do not like that system very much, but it is available and something we looked into on the Franks committee. The arrangements are set out. But the Government did not do that. Instead, they handled it in a ham-fisted manner through the Treasury solicitor.
Who is responsible for GCHQ? Considering how the Government handled the Falklands war up to D Day, which was not very clever, when the newspapers last week reported the bickering in the Cabinet, it was no wonder that the Attorney-General had a problem. If he is to get advice from his colleagues about the public interest, who will be the one to do that? I recall that, on the Pouting business, the Attorney-General said that he did not consult anyone. In that case, it does not matter if there is confusion in Government policy because the Attorney-General will take it in his stride.
Under what terms was the BBC told not to show the film? Under the terms of the charter, the Government have the power, for security reasons, to tell the BBC not to publish. But also under the terms of the charter, the BBC has the right then to reveal that the order has been given by the Government. If this was done on security grounds, the BBC should have revealed that fact. I suspect that it was not done on security grounds because it was not on real security grounds, if the article that I have read is anything to go by.
This has been a remarkable debate, and I hope that the Solicitor-General will respond in a like manner. Both sides of the House want a response to a debate in which hon. Members from both sides of the House have put forward ideas that have changed minds. I hope that the Government will change their mind.

Mr. John Morris: This has been a remarkable House of Commons occasion.

Mr. Cormack: On a point of order Mr. Speaker. Is there any particular reason for the wind-up speeches beginning now? Some of us have sat throughout the debate and are rather anxious to take part.

Mr. Speaker: If the Opposition Front Bench spokesman rises, the Chair will call him. If the House wishes to take a decision on all three amendments, time must be allowed for that.

Mr. Morris: I am willing to concede a few minutes to the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack).

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, and I am particularly to the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). I shall not detain the House for long. I would have liked to make several points, but I shall make one. Like the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, (Mr. Callaghan) I did not come to speak —many of us did not—but this has been a classic House of Commons occasion, when minds have been changed during the debate.
My mind was changed when one statement was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill). He said that, if we voted for the Government's


motion, we would be supporting the Chair and the Government. He said that in all good faith, but if that construction could be place upon the debate, it would do infinite damage to the House in every possible way. It would be completely wrong for you Mr. Speaker, to be thought to be allied with either side of the House, be it Government or Opposition. For that reason above all others, although many have been adduced which could convince people on both sides of the House, it is essential —I did not think that I would agree so enthusiastically with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) —that we should follow his, on this occasion, sage advice and refer this matter to the body that we as the House of Commons have appointed—the Committee of Privileges.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Cormack: I must not give way, because I promised to be brief.
I urge my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General to respond to the collective wisdom of the House and accept the manuscript amendment.

Mr. John Morris: There is no better way of underlining the fact that this is a House of Commons occasion than by giving way to the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), and I am delighted to have done so.
We are grateful to my right hon. Friends the Members for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) and other right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to this memorable debate. They have expressed their concern that, by passing the motion, we wittingly or unwittingly may be encroaching on the privileges of the House. We may be creating a dangerous precedent of affecting to put into effect the orders of another court—orders specifically mentioned in the Government's motion. Therefore, I hope that before it is too late the Government will say that they are prepared to accept the amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield.
You ruled, Mr. Speaker, on what I understand to be a one-off occasion in unusual circumstances when the House was not sitting on a Thursday morning, hoping that perhaps the House would reach some conclusion on your temporary order later in the day. The danger is that, if the precedent that has been created is endorsed today in the terms of the Government's motion, right hon. and hon. Members who raise similar issues in the future will hark back to your order and to the resolution itself, because our contributions will have been forgotten in the sands of time.
But the order of the House will be there. It will be part of "Erskine May" and will be prayed in aid if ever there is an injunction from another court, whether it be on the Government's application or on that of any other citizen of the land. That is the danger. A wide path has been created and if we go down that path without having given it proper and due consideration, we may be limiting the future freedom, privileges and traditions of the House. I am sure that is the last thing that you intended when you ruled temporarily.
You have given us yet another instance, Mr. Speaker, of great assistance to the House when, in response to an hon. Member's question, you said that if the matter went to the Committee of Privileges, your order would subsist for the time being, certainly until the Committee of Privileges considered the matter. May I add that perhaps the appropriate time that the matter would subsist would be not only when the Committee of Privileges considered the matter but when it in due course reported to the House and the House resolved the matter. That would be the time scale, and I am glad to see, Mr. Speaker, that you acknowledge what I have to say as correct.
That is what will remain. Therefore, in those circumstances, I do not understand what the Government have to lose by modifying their position. Your order will remain, Mr. Speaker. The film will not be shown within the precincts. Whatever the absurdities of the position as regards the outside world, the Government would not lose. If the Government were to say now that they would accept the amendment, I would willingly, in the interests of the House, sit down and allow the Solicitor-General to take his place. It may well be that Ministers are now considering the matter and we may have to wait a little longer before news comes to the Floor of the House, but I am ever optimistic.
Mr. Sherlock Holmes might say that the House tonight is dealing with the curious case of the defective injunction. As in every mystery, the House would like to know first, who did it—or perhaps would be more accurate to ask, who did not do it properly. Secondly, now that the horse has bolted from the stable, what is the rationale for the absurd position whereby, as the delightful phrase in the injunction states
Mr. Campbell, his servants"—
I like that—
or agents are prohibited from disclosing … anything relating to the project in question.
The horse has bolted from the New Statesman stable which provides Mr. Campbell with his fodder. However, we are asked to continue with the pointless exercise of turning a blind eye to the fact that every New Statesman reader knows of the project, but access to the film that deals with it is denied a showing within the precincts of this Palace.
If we pass the Government's motion, there will be a sort of cordon sanitaire around this building, with the effect that Members of Parliament will be able to read the New Statesman in the Library, but will not be allowed to see the film in the precincts of the House. That is the absurd position that we are asked to endorse. Our impression is of a monumental bungle to which no one will own up.
We have not yet had the opportunity to debate the Government's litigiousness in the Antipodes. If there is a Manpower Services Commission in Australia, it must be delighted with the Government's efforts to enhance job opportunities for our ever-needy Australian legal cousins. However, we know that the Government have been advised by their lawyers to sue on the similar subjects in Australia and in Ireland. Ultimately, somebody will come forward and confess to having advised the Attorney General to sue in Ireland, regardless of the Irish constitution, its history and traditions. The track record of the Law Officers is not exactly peerless. Therefore, it is not surprising that many hon. Members consider their activities with scepticism.
The known history is that the BBC passed the contents of the film to the security services. It is not clear whether


every technician involved in its making had been positively vetted. The film was due to have been shown in November. However, although the BBC had agreed in principle to the showing, it kicked for touch and delay followed delay until eventually there was a Government request, I surmise by the Ministry of Defence, in early December, not to show it.
It is an interesting light on this curious case that heavy briefings sought to pass the poisoned chalice to the Secretary of State for Defence. Ultimately, it had to be passed into the robust hands of the Foreign Secretary, who had to clear up the mess.
How credible was the Pontius Pilate act of the Ministry of Defence? Sir Frank Cooper, a former distinguished permanent secretary, was interviewed as far back as October and he, I am told, is on the film. It is extraordinary that that fact, and the subject matter, did not galvanise the Ministry of Defence to action, especially when Sir Clive Whitmore, the permanent secretary, is one of the joint chairmen of the D Committee. "Thank God," a nation in peril said, "for the BBC."
Eventually, in addition to the willingness of the BBC not to proceed with the film showing, an injunction was obtained against Mr. Campbell, his servants or agents.
The Prime Minister took the nation into her confidence on Friday on the IRN news and revealed that the Attorney-General could not just go along to the court and demand any old injunction, or a blanket one, to safeguard national security. She announced to an anxious nation that to obtain an injunction, one had to have names of specific persons and evidence had to be obtained which amounted to specific knowledge of an intention to publish. We were asked to accept that the Government were not at fault in not having included the New Statesman—or, come to think of it, ITN — in the terms of the injunction, because there was no evidence of an intention to publish.
I suppose that the security services do not know that Mr. Campbell is a paid staff journalist on the New Statesman. It would be improbable that, if he failed to publish the facts of his research one way, he would not try another. There was no whiff of an injunction at that stage.
I suppose that it was asking too much for the powers that be to lift the telephone and ask the editor for an assurance that he would not publish. If such assurances were sought, and not obtained, I should have thought that a court might have looked favourably on the Government's application, as it would have sufficiently specific evidence to obtain the injunction in the terms of the Prime Minister's lesson to the nation.
That is exactly what happened in the Saudi Arabian leak. I understand that the New Statesman went to Sir James Craig, the former ambassador, and put to him its intention to publish his letter. Understandably, there was great anxiety. The next day, an assurance was sought by the authorities from the New Statesman about whether it would forbear publishing. The assurance was not given. An injunction was then sought and, on that evidence, obtained. Unhappily, such was the lack of awareness in the Attorney-General's bailiwick that the injunction did not cover Scotland. When it was discovered, a Scottish judge had to be woken in the middle of the night. Unhappily, by that time, the Scottish printing presses were whirring.
If the security services did not know that Mr. Campbell wrote for the New Statesman, I do not understand why the BBC, in its proper anxiety to protect national security, did not tell them. Perhaps that is asking too much of it. It

might have gone further, and disclosed that there was a contractual agreement between the BBC and the New Statesman stating that the latter could and would publish the material in the film. Specific exception had been made, in line with normal copyright arrangements.
I understand that the idea was that the film would be shown on Wednesday or Thursday and that the New Statesman would roll off the presses on Thursday. It was a pretty sound and firm umbilical cord. Where was Mr. Alan Protheroe, a member of the D Committee? Why did not he or somebody in the BBC disclose that fact to the security services? If they did, somebody was very negligent indeed when limiting the injunction to Mr. Campbell, his servants or agents.
The question is not as the Prime Minister has said— that there was not sufficient evidence—for there was an embarrassment of riches in evidence provided that somebody opened his eyes to the significance of the BBC, the New Statesman or the Campbell connection. The Prime Minister's reply to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon was utterly unrealistic of the legal position.
Cases which involve the passing of secret information appear regularly before the courts, as with trade secrets and confidential information between employers and employees. The normal procedure is that, as soon as somebody knows that somebody else is in possession of confidential information about him or her which has been wrongly obtained, the person concerned seeks an undertaking that the information will not be disclosed or used. If the person fails to give an undertaking, that failure is prima facie evidence before the court, and the court invariably grants an injunction.
In this case, the Ministry of Defence knew that Campbell was making the programme with information that he should not have possessed. According to today's Times, the Ministry knew that back in October. The issue is not, as the Prime Minister said, whether the Government should have served an injunction against the BBC, but why they did not serve an injunction against Mr. Campbell early in October. The Government plainly could have done that. The BBC programme was being made by what is said to be the misuse of official secrets. If Campbell had failed to give an undertaking not to use the information, the Government could unquestionably have obtained an injunction.
If the Government had obtained an injunction, as any reasonably competent lawyer could have advised them, Campbell could neither have made the programme nor have written the article. If the Government are right about the dangers to national security, it is their failure to move against Mr. Campbell in October that is the real act of incompetence in this case.
I shall now consider the Attorney-General's actions towards my right hon. and hon. Friends when seeking to ban the showing of the film in the Palace. During that application, you, Mr. Speaker, were put in a most difficult position and decided to hold the situation for the time being.
What came over the Attorney-General to apply for an injunction againt my hon. Friends, when he knew, or should have known, of the case of Stockdale and Hansard in 1839, in which it was made clear that the House is the sole judge of its own proceedings? He did not need to go to Mr. Justice Ian Kennedy to have that, as the Leader of the House told us, resolved beyond peradventure. That is


an indication of the absurd position in which we find ourselves today, with absurdity heaped on absurdity, the whole of the outside world able to read the New Statesman, hon. Members unable to see the film within these precincts and the Government being seen to go against the whole tradition and history of the House in trying to limit the freedoms that it has won over the ages.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I should like to begin with a matter that is rather more serious in its content and significance than most of the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). Although it is unorthodox, I hope that, with the House's traditional sense of justice, I may be permitted to deal with a matter mentioned by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) during Prime Minister's Questions, when he suggested that a senior member of the Government had indicated to Mr. Campbell — and I paraphrase — that he, a senior member of the Government, was prepared to take part in the television programme in question and that Mr. Campbell was at liberty to proceed with that programme.

Mr. Robin Cook: Not just one programme.

The Solicitor-General: That was very much the essence of it—a senior member of the Government—my hon. Friends heard it. There would have been one way in which to establish this beyond any doubt, and that is if some notice had been given. I want to make it perfectly clear that, in so far as there is any suggestion that the Attorney-General was the Member referred to—and I say this with the authority of my right hon. and learned Friend, who is in his place — he has sent no letter to Mr. Campbell telling him either that he, the Attorney, would take part in the Secret Society programme or that Mr. Campbell himself could get away with it.
There has been one exchange of correspondence on the subject of the BBC programme between Mr. Campbell and the Attorney, and that was the one that took place shortly before 15 July 1986 when Mr. Campbell wrote to my right hon. and learned Friend to confirm
our request for you to consider being interviewed for BBC-TV on the subject of war emergency legislation".
My right hon. and learned Friend replied on the 15th, thanking him for his request
that I should agree to being interviewed for BBC-TV on the subject of war emergency legislation. I have considered your request very carefully but have concluded that the questions that you will be asking go far beyond my responsibilities as a Law Officer and that consequently it would not be appropriate for me to discuss these issues on your programme".
There was no reference to my right hon. and learned Friend taking part in any programme about a satellite; there was no reference to any programme about a satellite.
I believe it to have been rather less than helpful to the House that there was no indication in the question that the conversation or exchange of correspondence did not relate to the satellite programme. My right hon. and learned Friend tells me that he had no idea that this programme was being made about a satellite and that he had no connection with it whatsoever. I insist on the opportunity of putting that right.

Mr. Robin Cook: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. When he checks Hansard

tomorrow he will see that I quite explicitly referred to the series The Secret Society. I did not refer to a particular programme. But that is not the main point that brings me to my feet. Is the Solicitor-General assuring the House that the letter that he read to the House a moment ago is the only one that was removed by the Special Branch from the offices of the New Statesman yesterday?

The Solicitor-General: Certainly not.

Mr. Cook: Ah.

The Solicitor-General: We have heard reference to Sherlock Holmes. The hon. Member for Livingston exclaims "Ah" as though he were a latter-day Sherlock Holmes, whose investigations have unearthed some riches. Of course that is not the case. I say in answer, on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend, whom I consider to have been wronged, that no exchange of correspondence ever took place between my right hon. and learned Friend on the subject of the programme save the letter that I have quoted.

Mr. Cook: May I then ask the Solicitor-General to read the other letter that was removed yesterday from the New Statesman from the Attorney-General?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am not going to detain the House on matters that have no bearing on the film with which we are concerned. In a debate that has been very wide-ranging and of fascinating interest, one thing is absolutely apparent. Following the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the hare that there has been some concealment from that Committee of matters that ought not to be concealed from it really will not run any more. In a speech that the House found deeply interesting and impressive it was made clear that that charge cannot be sustained.
The third general point is that this has been a very wide debate that has brought recognition from all sides that there are conflicting interests between the rights and proper privileges of Members of this House and on the other hand the necessity in certain cases to keep secrets secret. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) indicated that that was the case, as have the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) and many other hon. Members. That lies at the root of the difficulty that confronted you, Mr. Speaker, last Thursday. It is right that we should recall what the Government's motion would require us to decide.

Mr. Kinnock: I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman might wrongly identify the root of the difficulty that faced Mr. Speaker last Thursday. The root of the difficulty, of the collision which is bound to occur between inquisitiveness, natural and right, of the House of Commons and the need to keep secrets that are identified as being essential to the security of the state, lies back last October when the Government first apprehended the fact that such a secret was likely to leak and they did absolutely nothing about it.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The Leader of the Opposition takes far too superficial a view of this. As the Prime Minister made clear, the action that the Government took in relation to the BBC in October had the result that the BBC took a responsible action in relation to this programme. It withdrew its programme and the


programme was not shown. The Leader of the Opposition has been very indignant about the fact that the Government did not proceed against the New Statesman and take out an injunction. We have listened to his indignation. Why does he not congratulate the BBC on its responsible and contrasting attitude? Perhaps he will do so now?

Mr. Kinnock: The point surely is, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman must know it, first that the security of the state and the confidence of the secrets of the state should not depend upon cosy chats with the BBC. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman had better tell us why it was the case, because as my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds South (Mr. Rees), a former Home Secretary, pointed out, there are powers of relationship within the charter of the BBC that require the Government to make the announcement that those powers have been exercised to require the BBC not to publish or publicise or broadcast certain material. Why was not that particular power exercised? Surely it cannot be that this Government, of all Governments, are afraid to give the impression of being repressive.

The Solicitor-General: The Government would quickly have been accused of being repressive had they marched in with a heavy hand and demanded that of the BBC. By following the course that they did, the Government secured the voluntary withdrawal by the BBC of the programme.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: rose—

The Solicitor-General: No; I have given way many times.
There has been general agreement that you, Mr. Speaker, faced with a difficult decision on Thursday, took the right decision. I think that the speech of the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) was the only one that was critical of that decision. I think that it was taken on the basis that there was not any privilege that would justify the showing in this House of a film in circumstances where that would be unlawful outside. I believe that it is a fair summary of the debate that there has been great understanding of your position and great support for it. That is entirely fair and right. That disposes of the first limb of the Government's motion.
However, there has been throughout the debate as it developed a concern for the deeper connotations of the issue that the Government's motion gives rise to. That has become apparent from all sides of the House. It was a matter of importance, Mr. Speaker, when you intervened and said that you understood that the consequences upon you of the manuscript amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), if accepted by the House, would be that your prohibition would remain in force until the Select Committee of Privileges had reported. That was an extremely important matter which aroused interest in all quarters of the House.
What arises, however, is whether that prohibition would remain in force only until such time as the Select Committee had reported, or whether a further period would elapse. I do not know whether it would be possible for you to inform the House whether there were more that would follow.

Mr. Speaker: The point was raised in his speech by the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr.

Morris). I can confirm that, if the House decides to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges, my instructions of 22 January will remain in force until the House itself can make a decision following the report of the Committee of Privileges, so long, that is, as the present injunction remains in force.

The Solicitor-General: That is very helpful. Mr. Speaker, and the whole House is grateful to you for that assurance.
The Government wish to take account of the views that have been expressed. It is right that in a debate affecting the affairs of the House account should be taken of them. Certainly the Government do not approach the matter with a closed mind. The Government wish to say that if the manuscript amendment finds favour with the House, as we believe it does, they would accept it. A great deal has been said in the debate—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This has been a very good debate. I said at the beginning that this is a House of Commons matter and that is what it should remain.

The Solicitor-General: I want to make one point in the interests of accuracy and fulness. I want to explain why the injunction was not asked for against the New Statesman. Several hon. Members have made the point that the law of England does not permit an injunction to be obtained in blanket form. An application must be made for an injunction against a named person. We cannot say that something may happen which ought not to be permitted and an injunction should be taken out against all the world. It may be that that rule should be reviewed in cases of national security. [Interruption.] That is the explanation why—

Mr. Joseph Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order while the debate is taking place for the Prime Minister's press secretary, Mr. Bernard Ingham, to run around the Press Gallery briefing the Daily Mail—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I only take notice of what happens in the Chamber.

The Solicitor-General: That is the rule that prevented my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General on behalf of the Government from obtaining an injunction against the New Statesman. At the time, the Government did not know of any evidence that would have permitted that. This was not a matter that the Attorney-General decided upon by himself. Quite rightly in a matter of such sensitivity and difficulty, he consulted Treasury counsel of vast experience. That advice was unequivocal. He was told that the evidence available would not have made it proper to apply for an injunction against the New Statesman. That is why that matter took the course that it did.

Mr. McNamara: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

The Solicitor-General: No, I will continue, because the House wants to reach a decision and I have already given way on several occasions.
Criticism was made that we should have proceeded much earlier. Once the BBC had withdrawn its programme and made its decision, there was no evidence or sign that anyone was going to seek publication of that film. The BBC had withdrawn it and there was no evidence available to the Government that anyone was to consider the film


for publication. That is why no move was made until a report appeared that the film was to be shown in the House. A decision then had to be taken as to whether to proceed. That decision was taken on Tuesday and on Wednesday the injunction was obtained.
Since we are to decide to refer the matter to the Select Committee of Privileges, I want to mention this matter for the record so that criticisms understandably made in the early part of the debate should not go unanswered and actions should not go unexplained. That is important. If there had been any sign of concern that the article should have been submitted for publication or printed by the New Statesman without any attempt being made to check whether it would damage national security, or if any indignation had been expressed by the Opposition about that, I would have accepted that indignation with more voracity. However, there was no sign of that.
The House now wishes to come to a decision. I believe that it is right, in the light in the way in which the debate has progressed and the views expressed, that the manuscript amendment should be accepted. I recommend that to the House.

Amendment made: in line 1, leave out from 'That' to end and add
'Mr. Speaker's ruling of 22nd January, relating to the showing of a film, be referred to the Committee of Privileges'.—[Mr. Benn.]

Main Question, as amended, agreed to.

Resolved,

That Mr. Speaker's ruling of 22nd January, relating to the showing of a film, be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

Orders of the Day — Ministry of Defence Police Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Archie Hamilton): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
First, I should like to remind the House of the main purposes of the Ministry of Defence Police and the reasons for its existence as a separate police force. As early as 1686 the Admiralty became aware of the need for an organisation to prevent crime within its dockyards. The Secretary for the affairs of the Admiralty of England was then Samuel Pepys, who instructed that a force of
porters, rounders, warders and watchmen be formed to guard the naval yards".
The porters escorted visitors, the rounders patrolled the yards and did the rounds, the warders had charge of the keys, and the watchmen guarded at night. This force continued until it was disbanded in 1834, when the first of the dockyard police forces was formed. The Admiralty introduced these forces, consisting of special constables, at dockyards and some other establishments, having had the benefit of the advice of a superintendent of the new Metropolitan force. Members of the dockyard police forces had full police powers and there were even incentive schemes to encourage members to detect embezzlers.
Sir Robert Peel's Act of 1829 for
improving the police in and near the metropolis
created the Metropolitan police force and in 1860 it took over from the dockyard police the job of guarding naval dockyards. The Metropolitan Police Act 1860 authorised the employment of Metropolitan police constables in Her Majesty's yards. This was later amended to include principal military and air force stations, and up to 15 miles outside such stations in respect of Crown property or persons subject to naval, military or air force discipline.
The Metropolitan police took over the policing of Portsmouth and Devonport dockyards initially, and other establishments soon afterwards. To give some idea of numbers, 128 members of the force were employed at Deptford and Woolwich, and about 400 in other Admiralty establishments. The Metropolitan police also formed a water police branch and at Devonport dockyard the whole of that branch lived in an old hulk once commissioned as HMS Leda.
The 1860 Act applied only to England and Wales, although it was extended to Scotland in 1914. After that year, the Metropolitan police were progressively withdrawn from the dockyards because of the all too familiar strain on their resources. The Special Constables Act 1923 allowed special constables to be employed permanently by public departments to protect such establishments. The Act had effect in Scotland but not in Northern Ireland.
The period up to the end of the second world war saw the establishment of the Admiralty, Army Department and Air Force constabularies. By 1949, the Admiralty constabulary comprised some 3,500 men policing 150 separate establishments, and had its own training school. The Army Department constabulary initially numbered 2,100 when it was formed in 1925 as the War Office constabulary. Police protection at civilian manned stations


under former Air Ministry aegis was originally provided by Metropolitan and county constabularies, but members of these forces were gradually withdrawn after the formation of the Air Ministry constabulary, later renamed the Air Force Department constabulary. During the second world war this force's strength rose to a peak of 3,530.
In 1947, the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act extended the 1923 Act to cover any premises in the United Kingdom used by the Admiralty, Army or Air councils for military purposes, including those in Northern Ireland, although there was no provision there for powers outside an establishment.
The Visiting Forces and International Headquarters Order 1965—SI 1536/1965—further extended the 1860 Act to include the property of visiting forces and international heaquarters and the persons subject to the service law of such forces. In 1971 the three single service constabularies were amalgamated into the present Ministry of Defence police. In one form or another, that force has been doing its present job since 1860, when it was a branch of the Metropolitan police.
The Home Department police forces are no less stretched now than before and at the same time the policing of MOD property has developed in ways which themselves place heavy demands on police resources. The MDP is itself now some 5,000 strong.
The force provides a high level of physical security on sensitive defence property through its special knowledge of MOD's establishments and the Department's many complex systems. It also provides, for example, a specialised CID resource which has knowledge of the internal accountancy of MOD and which is able to investigate fraud, which can be nationwide, in conjunction with its Home Department police colleagues. It was because the special needs of such large organisations are so demanding of manpower that separate police forces with constabulary powers, such as the British Transport police and the Atomic Energy Authority constabulary, were created.
Not only do these forces make a considerable contribution to keeping the peace, but in doing so, they provide relief for the Home Department forces. The MDP is by far the largest of the police forces outside the Home Departments but is among the last to have its powers defined in a single Act. In drafting this long overdue measure every effort has been made to avoid any overlapping with the duties of the Home Department police. I make it absolutely clear that the Home Department police have prime responsibility for the enforcement of the law, and nothing in the Bill changes that. Indeed, the Bill sets out to be supportive of the Home Department police forces wherever MDP assistance is called upon in matters affecting the security of MOD establishments.
To give a flavour of the type of duties the MDP perform, I should first mention the operations to contain demonstrations, which are undoubtedly the most public of the MDP's activities. In the past year alone, there have been over 700 demonstrations, many associated with antinuclear protests or with the introduction of byelaws at defence establishments. Some of the demonstrations were on a major scale which called for a considerable commitment of both MDP and Home Department police forces. A recent demonstration at Rosyth involved 1,000 demonstrators, and another at Molesworth resulted in

some 3,500 people attending. It may be necessary on occasion to deploy up to 600 MDP constables at such demonstrations.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I was trying to catch the Minister's eye earlier. He just mentioned Rosyth. Of the 5,000 members of the force, how many are employed in Scotland? When the Minister talks about the Home Department police forces, is he also talking about the Scottish police force rules?

Mr. Hamilton: Yes. When I refer to the Home Department police forces, I mean the Scottish ones under their chief constables as well as the English ones under theirs. On the number of MOD police employed in Scotland, I am afraid that I do not know the split of the 5,000 between England and Wales and Scotland, but I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about that.
In addition to these exceptional protection tasks and the MDP's normal duties protecting and patrolling MOD sites, there are more specialised roles such as CID duties and VIP protection duties. During the past year, some 25,000 offences have been reported to CID. The detection rate is some 60 per cent. — a very gratifying result, although it reflects the relatively closed society within which the MDP operates. Offences range from thefts, assaults, smuggling, fraud, burglary and forgery —indeed, almost the full range of crime found in our society. There is an absolute requirement for the MDP to pass serious crimes such as murder and rape to the Home Department forces.
The MDP is formally responsible for policing MOD establishments in the United Kingdom, as required by the Defence Council, its three service boards and the Procurement Executive Management Board. It also provides police services for military forces of other Governments based in the United Kingdom.
In addition, while at Army and RAF stations and establishments, service police are primarily responsible for investigating crime by service personnel, the Royal Navy has no service police branch, and the MDP may be called upon to investigate crime committed by service personnel in Her Majesty's ships and at Royal Navy establishments. Similarly, the Procurement Executive has no service police resources, and where constabulary powers are required, MOD police are employed at Procurement Executive establishments.

Dr. Godman: The Minister talks about the Royal Navy not having a service police force, and I think that he said that the MOD police could investigate alleged crimes committed by Naval personnel. Under the terms of the Armed Forces Act, would these personnel have the right to investigate allegations of crimes committed by families of the Naval personnel? I do not want this to be answered by Conservative Back Benchers but by the Minister.

Mr. Hamilton: MOD police are able to investigate crime on MOD property, so if the crime is committed in family quarters, they would be in a position to investigate it, but this has to be done in the closest conjunction and co-operation with the Home Department forces, and it has to be cleared by them.

Dr. Godman: I have no wish to take up the time of the House, but there are some important issues here. Is the Minister telling the House that in the case of an alleged


sexual assault or child abuse committed in the married quarters of sailors or officers, the MOD police would investigate the matter? Surely that is not so.

Mr. Hamilton: Much depends on who was on the scene of the crime first, and to whom the call was made. If the call were made to the MOD police, and they were the first on the scene of the crime, they might be the people to start the investigation. However, they would be obliged to get in touch with the Home Department police forces and to co-ordinate with them. On serious crimes, we would expect the Home Department police forces to take over the investigation.

Mr. Dick Douglas: I apologise for intervening so early in his speech, because the Minister has yet to get on to deal with the substance of the Bill. Is not one of the complications of the measure that MOD police coming on to married quarters in, say, Rosyth have been in contact with the Fife constabulary, but the Bill makes such relationships unclear?

Mr. Hamilton: The position has always been clear. The Bill does not change the role of MOD police. It merely brings activities in which they have been involved under the same legislation. The MOD police are entitled to investigate crimes on MOD property.

Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: I am led to believe, by the Association of Chief Police Officers for both Scotland and for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, that the Home Department forces would claim responsibility for the investigation of all serious offences, and particularly those against the person. One of the problems into which we have to look in Committee would be the lack of co-ordination in this sector. We should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) for raising this point. Serious offences against a person, which would cover the tragic crimes to which my hon. Friend referred, should be the responsibility of the Home Department police forces in the final analysis.

Mr. Hamilton: I accept that. Serious crime, like all crime, is the responsibility of the Home Department forces. It is a question of the inter-relationship with the Home Department forces regarding serious crimes. The Ministry of Defence police would hand over responsibility for such crimes at once. If the case involved murder, rape or any such thing there would be no question and the investigation of such crime would be handed, straight away, to the Home Department forces, although, conceivably, the MDP may be first on the scene of the crime.
When it comes to minor crimes there is often an agreement within the Home Department forces that it might be better if the MDP investigated it. It all depends on the resources and expertise of the MDP.

Dr. Alan Glyn: In the initial investigations have the MOD police got the same powers as a police constable investigating a similar offence?

Mr. Hamilton: The purpose of the Bill is to give the MDP constabulary powers. At the moment the MDP have

the power of special constables, but under the Bill they would have the power of constable and would be in a better position to investigate crime.
An awful lot is made of the difference between the Home Department police forces and the MDP. In practice there is close co-operation and the MDP police get on extremely well with the Home Department police. We should not imagine that there is enormous friction between the MDP and the Home Department forces.
The security threats to the Ministry's establishments range from innocent trespass, theft and fraud to espionage, sabotage and terrorist attack. In reviewing these threats, the Defence Select Committee and the MOD police review committee — known as the Broadbent committee— placed high value on the contribution the MDP could make to dealing with them. Obviously, it is not the responsibility of the Home Department police to pursue serious threats which materialise, but the MDP will often make the initial, immediate reaction to good effect. Both committees concluded that it would be highly desirable to have a Bill such as this to draw together all relevant existing enactments in a way that reflected the MDP's present duties and clarified its powers.
There is at present no single Act of Parliament from which the MDP derives its powers. In fact there is no Act which provides specifically for the MDP at all. The separate police forces to which I have already referred are authorised by Acts which confer appropriate powers directly. In contrast, the MDP derives its powers from a Metropolitan Police Act passed in 1860 to permit the use of Metropolitan constables in royal dockyards and military stations. Although this early legislation has been amended and extended many times down the years, it was not conceived with the duties of a modern force in mind and it cannot be appropriate for duties which could not be foreseen in Victorian times. Not surprisingly, there are gaps and ambiguities which were detected by the Select Committee on Defence and confirmed by the MOD police review committee in the Broadbent report.
The main clauses in the Bill, therefore, set out to codify and clarify the powers of MDP and to realign them with their present duties and responsibilities. The Bill will make few changes of substance to the MDP's jurisdiction and it is not intended to make major changes in the way in which its duties are carried out.

Mr. Douglas: The Minister has mentioned the Broadbent report several times. In his exposition of the Bill would he care to state where the proposals in the Bill are in line with the Broadbent report and where they exceed the proposals in the Broadbent report?

Mr. Hamilton: That is a difficult question and I shall reply to the hon. Gentleman in writing.

Mr. O'Neill: May I assist the Minister? On 24 July 1986 his predecessor, the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee), answered a very substantial question, which covered many of the points at issue, put by his hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who is present in the Chamber.

Mr. Hamilton: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill).
The MDP and the defence police federation have long sought the unambiguous mandate for their duties which this Bill attempts to provide. The House will, I think, be


sympathetic to such modest aims and will, I know, put their very useful knowledge of this topic to good effect as I briefly run through the clauses in the Bill.
The intention of the first clause is to provide the force with a statutory basis in its own right instead of its rather curious status as a body of special constables with the powers of constables of the Metropolitan police under the 1860 Act. The force will consist of the existing body of members and any members who shall be nominated by the Secretary of State. Such persons as are appointed will need to be attested, or sworn in, before a justice to carry out the law of the area in which they shall serve. The clause allows the Secretary of State to exercise administrative control of the force through the police committee. The chief constable has control of police operations and responsibility for the application of the law.
Clause 2 provides constabulary powers in the United Kingdom for land and property under the control of the MOD, visiting forces, international headquarters, ordnance factories and dockyard contractors. It will enable the MDP to police non-MOD sites such as the Royal Mint, where they have historic responsibilities, when suitable notice has been published by gazette. It will also enable MDP to assist local police forces who request assistance in carrying out their duties in the vicinity of MOD land.
Elsewhere in the United Kingdom MDP powers will be limited under this clause principally to Crown property and to persons serving the defence interests of the Crown either directly or as contractors. MDP will continue to be able to exercise their powers in relation to visiting forces and to ordnance companies' and dockyard contractors' property. These limitations will apply throughout the United Kingdom and replace the outdated provision in the 1860 Act which was intended to enable a dockyard constable to act up to 15 miles outside his establishment.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: As a supporter of the Bill I do not wish to pursue a clause point. However, in clause 2 there is the provision that the
Ministry of Defence police shall have the powers and privileges of constables.
in any area of the United Kingdom outside those defined in the early part of the clause. The clause goes on to say that that is
in relation to matters connected with anything done under a contract entered into by the Secretary of State for Defence".
That is too wide. The Secretary of State might be buying lettuces or blankets, or the American forces might be buying a wide range of things. I cannot believe that the Ministry of Defence police would want to be involved, or could properly be involved, in anything that touched upon contracts entered into by the Secretary of State.

Mr. Hamilton: I understand my hon. Friend's point. However, we might be talking about a very sensitive piece of defence equipment being manufactured by a contractor. It would be possible in those circumstances to have Ministry of Defence police on the premises of a private defence contractor making sensitive equipment for the Ministry of Defence. That is the prime reason why that has been put into the Bill. It gives us the freedom to be able to put Ministry of Defence police on the premises of private contractors and manufacturers who are manufacturing defence equipment.
Although most of the United Kingdom is within 15 miles of MOD property, the 1860 limit is no longer

relevant to the MDP's important dujties, for example when protecting MOD property in transit. Under clause 2 the constabulary powers which the MDP need to protect Crown property in transit will no longer be arbitrarily affected by the 15 mile limit. On some occasions MOD vehicles are provided with an additional escort by the Home Department police force through whose area the vehicles are passing, but on occasions the Home Department police are hard pressed elsewhere and are therefore unable to assist with traffic control. In such circumstances, or in an emergency, it is necessary to provide the MDP with the powers of a constable because the traffic directions issued by a private citizen are riot binding upon other members of the public. However, MDP keep closely in touch with their Home Department colleagues concerning vehicle movements and they would need to use these traffic powers only when it was known that members of the local police were unable to attend a traffic blockage near to an MOD vehicle in transit.
Clause 2 also empowers the MDP to act in relation to Ministry of Defence or contractors' property or personnel where an investigation may need to be followed up outside the bounds of an MOD establishment. That was the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths). That could extend to fraud involved in the purchase of clothing or something of a relatively unspectactular form.
In practice, the MDP criminal investigation department usually acts with the Home Department CID in such inquiries.

Mr. Douglas: Has the Minister or one of his hon. Friends had the Broadbent report? How does what he said in relation to traffic control conform with paragraph 53 of Broadbent?

Mr. Hamilton: I cannot comment on each individual paragraph of the Broadbent report, but the Bill broadly ties in with Broadbent.
The MDP may, however, find itself in a position where it has to act quickly—for example, to prevent stolen goods from being removed before the arrival of Home Department forces. Clause 2 covers such situations to safeguard the occasions when or any reason the MDP CID find themselves unable to summon the immediate support. of their Home Office colleagues.
Members of the MDP regularly patrol dockyard waters. Clause 2 covers the occasional requirement to act in respect of MOD vessels lying outside a dockyard but within territorial waters—for example, when taking a prisoner off a vessel about to enter harbour or to assist in protecting sensitive supplies for a vessel anchored just offshore. In such situations the Home Department forces are not always able to act, because they do not have the resources or right equipment.
The remainder of clause 2 defines the terms used in the Bill.
Clause 3 gives effect to a recommendation in the Broadbent report that the MDP staff associations should be recognised by any future legislation. By such recognition the Department acknowledges the Defence Police Federation as the sole negotiating body for all ranks up to chief superintendent who would otherwise lack representation and who are prohibited by their contract from withdrawing their labour. The clause describes the subjects on which the DPF will be able to make its


representations, and the role of the Secretary of State in regulating the conduct of the federation. The clause confirms an existing agreement with the department which the federation has long sought to codify in an MDP Bill.
Clause 4 makes it an offence to impersonate any members of the MDP by wearing or possessing an article of uniform, or by using a badge or document which conveys a false impression or MDP membership. Similar legislation protects members of the Home Office forces, and it is particularly important that such protection is extended to those whose task can involve guarding highly classified equipment and property.
Clause 5 deals with the offence of causing disaffection amongst MDP which could lead to strike action or breaches of discipline in the force. Again, the provision mirrors that found in the Police Act 1964. Although, as with the previous clause, that Act does not cover the MDP, it is clearly necessary to prevent acts of a seditious nature taking place within the ranks of a security force, whose task is to protect sensitive material and installations.
Clause 6 consist of amendments to existing legislation.
The final clause gives the short title and date of commencement and extends the Bill to Northern Ireland, where MDP have a very small presence.
The aim of the Bill is to clarify the existing powers of the Ministry of Defence police and to enable it to carry out its duties without risking infractions of the law and without interfering with the activities of other forces. Home Department chief constables have primary responsibility for the application of the law generally, and, as before, theirs will normally be the leading role in dealing with major offences. There is scope, where jurisdictions are concurrent, for potential conflict between the responsibilities of the MDP, Home Department and other forces. But, in practice, relations with other police forces are very good and all concerned in the MOD are determined that they should remain so.
It is against that background that the Government are persuaded of the need for a clear statutory basis for the MDP. It cannot be satisfactory to base such an important and comendable service affecting national security on a series of enactments dating from the last century. Previous debates in the House have indicated that there is a considerable awareness of, and sympathy for the MOD police. I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish to support the Bill, which seeks to clarify the statutory basis of the operations of this loyal and professional force.
I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: I had some misgivings earlier today about whether we would reach the Bill. The Prime Minister seemed, in the course of the afternoon, to display an ignorance of the fact that the Bill was coming before us. In areas where she is ignorant, we are often not allowed to pass comment, but those matters seem to have been resolved and we now have an opportunity to deal with the Bill. It has been suggested that the Prime Minister's lapse was attributable to the rather sloppy attitude that the Government have at the moment towards security.
However, there is certainly no reflection on the work of the MOD police. As we were treated to a brief history lesson by the Minister, I shall not go into that. Suffice it to say that in the—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That at this day's sitting, the Ministry of Defence Police Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Portillo.]

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. O'Neill: It is just over 300 years since Samuel Pepys advised the Special Commissioners of the Navy to guard the naval dockyards. I shall not deal with all the functions of the porters, rounders, warders and so on. It is significant that, despite the sterling efforts of those men and their successors, the danger of embezzlement of stores from Ministry of Defence establishments is still as great a problem as it ever was. In many respects it is probably even greater than it was in days gone by. Certainly it is true to say that the categories of policemen involved have extended far beyond the porters, rounders, warders and watchmen. We now have some 150 establishments in Britain and Northern Ireland with a complement, in 1984, of about 4,220 men and women.
This is not a controversial Bill. We do not intend to seek to divide the House. We can probably tidy up any of the difficulties in Committee, I hope fairly briefly. But we have the opportunity this evening to explore some of the difficulties and issues which have been brought to my attention by the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Ministry of Defence police. However, the latter group seems to be a great deal more satisfied with the proposals than the chief constables. Nevertheless, their misgivings can probably be met in the course of our deliberations.
There is always an anxiety, especially with a highly professional, somewhat self-conscious group such as the chief constables, that someone will muscle in on their patch, for want of a better expression. However, there is little appreciable difference in terms of the skills, training and rewards between the Ministry of Defence police and their civilian counterparts, the Home Department police.
The questions which the chief constables have raised with me are evidence of their anxiety about the question of jurisdiction. That could be resolved and I hope that we can look at some of the problems this evening and in Committee. I am sure that compromises and guidelines can be established which will be to everyone's satisfaction.
Other issues have been raised. The question of the creation of special constables is still exercising the

Government. I can see the danger in allowing the MOD police to have special constables, because only a certain number of people would be prepared to volunteer their services. The Government must judge whether those individuals should be encouraged to join the civil police or the Ministry of Defence police. I hope that the Minister will be forthcoming about that. My hon. Friends and I have no hard and fast feelings about it and would be willing to take judgment and to listen to the Minister's view on it. I hope that a view will be forthcoming before the Bill leaves the House.
Of course, there are other areas in which the MOD police and the civil police are drawn together. That obviously applies to terrorism and the threat of it, when close co-operation must be secured at the earliest possible moment. I know that contingency plans have been drawn up as a result of wide-ranging discussions between Home Department police and the Ministry of Defence police. I hope that the new status that the legislation will afford to the MOD police will not result in any additional barriers being erected where, at the moment, I am satisfied that there is useful co-operation.
We have heard about convoys of nuclear loads almost by implication, and I appreciate the Minister's reluctance to discuss that. I say that partly because of recent publicity, although my own inclination is that the Government are far too secretive. Some of the people near to whose property the loads travel would be better off if they were fully aware of what was taking place and the circumstances in which those convoys were being organised.
The fire and ambulance emergency services are obviously involved. In the recent case in Wiltshire, it is clear that a fire tender was present. If there had been a fire, I am certain that it could have been dealt with speedily.
However, at the moment, movement of nuclear loads is still the prerogative of the Home Department chief officers. Once a convoy leaves the base, it is the responsibility of the chief constable, through whose areas it travels. I have asked the Minister of State for the Armed Forces questions about this, but his response was characteristically reticent. I am not saying that he is being economical with the truth, but he is being reticent about some of the circumstances surrounding the incident in Wiltshire. I see the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) in his place—I understand that he is the local Member of Parliament, and he may wish to raise that point.
One is never too clear about the point at which the local constabulary is actively involved. When sensitive loads—regardless of what those loads are—are discussed, the local police should be informed so that they have a fair idea and can move into an incident at the earliest possible moment. In that situation, we must avoid any difficulties that the legislation could create by putting barriers between local police and Ministry of Defence police.
I recognise also that there are sensitive issues regarding personnel for convoys and who should carry arms. Ministers ought at least to recognise that. Perhaps some probing amendments in Committee will provoke a response.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that, when the Atomic Energy Authority police were established and given powers to safeguard the movement of nuclear fuel, they were given power to be armed? They are armed. Does he remember that the Secretary of State


who pushed that legislation through the House was the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who is now so strongly opposed to arming the police on any occasion?

Mr. O'Neill: I was able to indulge in the luxury of watching proceedings in the House from a position somewhat removed from that which I now enjoy. I recognise that difficult decisions about arming the police have occasionally to be made. I am not suggesting that there are no circumstances in which the police should be armed. The interesting thing about moving nuclear waste is that the civil police have a far more open approach than the military authorities. As we have to consider the removal of waste from craft such as nuclear submarines, we are entitled to greater frankness.
I have noted that the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), prompted I think by a report in last week's New Scientist, has said three times that he is concerned about the transportation and, ultimately, dumping of nuclear waste from nuclear-powered ships in the Chatham area. A variety of issues are involved, not just the mischievous point raised by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths). There are circumstances in which the police have to be armed for their own safety and for the safety of people around them.
We do not want to find that, because we have considered the Bill with a somewhat dewy-eyed view, we have not got it right the first time, as we do not often get a second chance.
The Ministry of Defence police force, which comprises some 4,200 people, is one of the largest in the country. The Secretary of State is a one-man police authority. I do not represent a London constituency, but I am aware that there are a variety of views about police accountability. Local chief constables through whose territory Ministry of Defence police may travel in the course of their duties are subject to the limited accountability that present legislation provides. There is a feeling—it was expressed to me by a chief constable—that the chief constable of the MOD police will be subject to far less accountability than his civil counterpart. We should consider that in Committee to see whether accountability can be more clearly defined.
If public confidence in the police is to be restored, or maintained—depending on people's attitude—they must be entitled to more accountability from chief constables, especially in the MOD force, as we are unlikely to legislate again for some considerable time.
We also have the problems of the Police Committee, which I understand will be a kind of advisory board for the MOD police. I understand that on this committee there will be representatives of the Scottish Office, the Northern Ireland Office and the Home Office, and that there will be civil chief constables' representatives, but not the MOD chief constable himself. This could well put the MOD chief constable at a disadvantage. The valid point was made to me by the MOD Police Federation today that they want their man involved in all the discussions. Perhaps the Minister will comment on what seems to be an omission here. Perhaps I have misunderstood, but if the Minister could check on this it would save my trying to construct an amendment for the Committee stage. It would be helpful if we could have this point cleared up.
I have referred to the question of jurisdiction in clause 2. This problem might be overcome if, perhaps by way of a statutory instrument, guidelines could be laid down for relationships between the MOD police and local constabularies. I suggest that it might be by way of statutory instrument not because I have tremendous enthusiasm for secondary legislation — invariably it is taken either on an inconvenient Wednesday morning or late at night when one would rather be doing other things, especially on Thursday evening when Scotsmen like to be on sleepers, getting back to their families—but because in this particular area it would be useful for us to have some form of secondary legislation. It is not a vital matter, but it would give us an opportunity to review jurisdiction at regular intervals and ensure that a balance such as I have been trying to look for could be achieved and sustained between the two forces.
As regards the provisions for the Police Federation, not too many trade unions are enshrined in legislation. I recognise that the federation's rights and responsibilities are quite clearly defined. Nothing in the representations made to us suggests that its members would like the power to go on strike or to withdraw their labour. My own belief is that this is a fundamental right in a free society and should not be given up at any price, but I respect the wishes of the individuals both in the Ministry and, more important, in the Police Federation. It is not something that they have been clamouring for.
There is, however, one matter on which I should like to have the views of the Minister. That is the question of representation in disciplinary cases. I am led to believe that, when disciplinary cases arise, within the service, the federation will invariably provide legal representation for the MOD police—some form of assistance in the shape of solicitors. It seems that there is some lack of clarity about the regulations in clause 3. Perhaps the Minister would give us his view on this, whether it is appropriate for the MOD Police Federation to provide, as it were, legal aid in the shape of solicitors or barristers and for it to be able to do so not in a kind of "one stage removed" arrangement, as I believe happens at present.
From what I can gather, clause 3 is not a bone of contention with the men and women involved. They are reasonably happy with it. On the question of impersonation, the only problem, suggested to me by a chief constable, is that of identification, in that people could be confused between MOD police and civil police. I have an open mind on this issue. The Police Federation forcibly put it to me that it would see any attempt to make its members appear different from the civil police as perhaps the thin edge of a wedge which might try to reduce their status and authority. MOD police find some consolation and comfort in looking the same as civil police because they consider themselves to be similarly motivated.
It had been put to me, however, that where there are major MOD establishments there are perhaps more police behind the wire than outside it, and confusion and difficulty could arise. I am merely rehearsing arguments advanced to me. I have no particular view on the matter, but I would be interested in the Minister's response. There is a plethora of organisations, financed both publicly and privately, all whom aspire to police-style uniforms. There are difficulties here. Perhaps we should look to these paramilitary security organisations and try to get their house in order rather than picking on a section of our own police force, the MOD police force. I have an open mind,


but since the matter has been raised and this is a Second Reading debate, it would be useful for the Minister to give some idea of his views on the matter.
On the question of disaffection, my limited researches, which tended to involve discussions with one or two colleagues, suggest that relationships between the MOD police and the demonstrators at Greenham Common are very good. I would not say necessarily that the demonstrators get on with everybody else who is engaged there, but it seems that in that area disaffection does not arise. Although I have heard it said that some of the men may sympathise with the objectives of the demonstrators, it is not for me to draw any conclusions from that. The question of disaffection is not significant, but it has to be covered in the Bill. Otherwise, there would be difficulties. The loyalty and commitment of the MOD police are sufficient to withstand any of the inducements that are suggested here.
We give the Bill a qualified welcome. We are not wildly enthusiastic about it. We recognise, as suggested by Broadbent and the Select Committee, that there is a need for this consolidating measure. When we think about Samuel Pepys's recommendation 300 years ago, we have to say that over the years the MOD police have not suffered greatly and we, as the British public, have not suffered from the absence of consolidated legislation. On the other hand, this legislation provides us with an opportunity to review MOD police functions and to take advantage of the work of the Select Committee.
I notice that there are members of the Select Committee who are ready and willing to participate. It is useful that we benefit from their experience and that we take advantage of the reflections of Broadbent and his colleagues.
Therefore, I am happy that the Bill should come before us. No doubt we shall have a constructive and useful debate. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply. If he can answer some of my problems, it will expedite the Bill's progress in Standing Committee.

Mr. Robert Key: I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Minister on two scores. The first is on his excellent introduction and potted history of the Ministry of Defence police. Had I known that he was going to be so wide ranging and deep in his analysis, I would have saved myself many hours of research. He has done a great service to many future generations of hon. Members.
Secondly, I congratulate my hon. Friend because, in the long history of the police force, and more especially the Ministry of Defence police, he is the first Minister of the Crown to introduce a debate in either Chamber on the subject. When the Metropolitan Police Act 1860 was put through Parliament, neither in the House of Lords nor in the House of Commons was there a debate at any stage. The measure went through the whole process on the nod.
When introducing the Bill in another place my noble Friend Lord Trefgarne said:
The simple aim of the Bill is to provide the force with clear powers appropriate to its current responsibilities. … The Government are convinced of the need for a clear statutory basis for MDP which will incorporate a single unambiguous set of provisions defining their powers and jurisdiction." — [Official Report, House of Lords, 4 December 1986; Vol. 482, c. 947–48]

I must start by saying that the Bill is very welcome. I congratulate the Ministry of Defence police, who have a difficult and stressful job. There is also the burden that is borne by the wives and families, particularly when their husbands are on duty at difficult demonstrations. As a Member with a heavily militarised constituency, however, I believe that I have a duty to ask some searching questions.
The first question relates to the primacy of Home Department forces and a single unambiguous set of provisions. There was, as we know, an accident with a military convoy in West Dean in my constituency on 10 January. There was very speedy attendance by the Wiltshire police. I believe that they were there in about four minutes. The local police had primacy in dealing with the public, in the sense that they dealt with the public, but they were side by side with armed marines who stopped, detained and interrogated my constituents. The county police did not know the instructions or rules under which the soldiers were operating. What happened to the information gathered by the military personnel? Was it passed to the Wiltshire constabulary? What happened to it then? It is not reasonable for the Wiltshire police to assume primacy in these circumstances when they do not know the rule under which their colleagues are operating at the scene of the incident. Where in the Bill is this unambiguity laid down? I cannot find it.
Similarly, residents of the villages of Shrewton, Tilshead, Orcheston and Chitterne are shortly to have a FIBUA—fighting in built-up areas—village built close by them unless the Ministry of Defence agrees to resite it. It is to be a 90-building military complex surrounded by villages. Who will have primacy in policing that area?
Before the Ministry of Defence police were constituted in 1973 there would have been no problem, because the former separate forces operated within clearly defined boundaries and premises, usually inside a security fence. However, since that time the Ministry of Defence police have interpreted their jurisdiction to include any persons, including civilians, who happen to be on Ministry of Defence land or premises, or passing through on public roads. For instance, Ministry of Defence police have taken breath tests for drink driving offences on public roads.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: From civilians?

Mr. Key: Yes, From civilians. Some commanding officers have issued instructions that all matters of crime should be reported first to Ministry of Defence police.

Mr. Douglas: In view of the important point that the hon. Gentleman has made, does he agree that one of the prime absences from the Bill is a complaints procedure against Ministry of Defence police?

Mr. Key: We must address that and other important points in Committee.
Many commanding officers have issued an instruction that all criminal matters must be reported first to the MOD police, and they have distributed circulars throughout married quarters in my constituency stating that that should happen. Before 1973, areas such as the mixed civilian MOD villages near Salisbury Plain, where the public have unrestricted access, were policed exclusively by the civil police. Today the policing depends on to whom the victim chooses to report the crime and


whether the MOD police choose to deal with it exclusively. There is no tight definition of what is meant by petty crime. Where do we draw the line?
The anomalies are obvious. Two agencies may pursue the same offender. The opportunities for duplication and misunderstanding are legion. Greater liaison is not the perfect solution, although it is highly desirable. Functional division of responsibilities is confusing to police and the public, and it is most unsatisfactory that some person other than the chief constable of the county should police and decide the prosecution policy when that involves victims and offenders who have nothing to do with the MOD except that they happen to be passing through an MOD area or happen to be relatives of serving soldiers.
I hope that the Bill will address such problems. I still remain to be convinced on those details. In reply to my question on 24 July 1986 the former Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee), gave the Government's response to the Broadbent report. In recommendation (ix) the Broadbent committee stated that an MOD police committee should be appointed, supported by outside professional representation. That was accepted by the Government and the committee is proposed in clause 1(5). However, can my hon. Friend assure us that his regulations will ensure representations from county constabularies? Will draft regulations be available for instance to the Standing Committee that will consider the Bill if it receives its Second Reading?
The Broadbent report also stated in recommendation (xvii) that each base should draw up orders concerning the responsibilities of the commanding officer and civil police on the lines of directives in force at the Clyde submarine base. That recommendation was also accepted by the Government, but where does that commitment appear in the Bill? Will it be a regulation excercisable by statutory instrument? As the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) said, that may well be a way forward.
Even more important, following the West Dean accident, in relation to escorting convoys the Broadbent report was clear that liaison with the local police force was good and must be maintained. The report stated that the area of concurrent jurisdiction should be reduced to a minimum through local agreements. The Government also accepted that recommendation, but where is it in the Bill? We will need to consider that point later.
The Broadbent report was also clear about CID operations. In recommendation (v) the report states that the scale and division of CID activity should be agreed between each civil police force and the MOD bases in its area. The Government did not accept that recommendation, which is very important for my constituents and to my county constabulary. We must pursue the question of CID investigations further.
The introduction of special constables is welcome, but I must sound a note of warning. All special constables must be of a high quality. In a county such as Wiltshire, with a comparatively small population, there is a limited pool of talent on which to draw. The MOD police specials will further reduce that pool. Civil specials are unpaid. Will MOD police specials be paid or unpaid? The MOD police already receive higher salaries than their civil counterparts, largely because more overtime is available. I shall not want to see financial divisions aggravated in any way.
Will my hon. Friend let me know at some stage—it would be unreasonable to expect a firm response tonight—the implications for this Bill of the private Member's Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) to abolish section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, with particular regard to county coroners? At present coroners carry out inquests relating to violent deaths of service personnel. They are assisted in that by civilian police. There is extremely good liaison with the Ministry of Defence, and coroners have a sight of the court of inquiry papers. It is important that the private Member's Bill should protect the rights of coroners to be assisted by civilian police and that a curtain of silence should not drop because possible proceedings for negligence are pending.
This is a sensible and necessary Bill and I look forward to my hon. Friend allaying my fears over the small print. The Bill will be good for my constituents and good for the nation. In these days of violent extra-parliamentary and undemocratic acts by certain groups in society, I can do not better than echo the words quoted by the then Minister, Mr. Bridgeman, when he introduced the Special Constables Bill in the House on 9 April 1923. He said:
the maintenance of public order and the suppression of all forms of violence are matters in which every member of the community is deeply concerned. From the earliest times the citizen has been and still is required to take his part in the preservation of the peace and the suppression of disorder. We consider that if the obligation of the citizen to the community in this respect were more widely recognised, the duties of the police would be materially lightened, their relations with the law-abiding portions of the community would be improved, and the burden of the maintenance of the police would be lightened."—[Official Report, 9 April 1923; Vol. 162, c. 944.]

Mr. John Cartwright: I, too, should like to add my congratulations to the Minister on the clear way in which he explained the proposals in the Bill and on the fascinating picture that he painted for us. This appears to be a rare moment of all-party consensus on defence, because I also welcome the Bill. It has taken a little time to implement the recommendations of the Broadbent committee and to follow the advice of the Select Committee on Defence. The action before us in the Bill is welcome.
The Minister said that the measure was long overdue. For some time, there has been a clear need to bring up to date and to clarify the legal powers of the Ministry of Defence police. I have a good deal of constituency experience in dealing with Ministry of Defence police. I hasten to add that it is in a totally friendly way and in a non-professional capacity. The Minister mentioned Woolwich and the part that it played in the early years. Woolwich arsenal is still policed and protected by Ministry of Defence police.
In the heyday of the arsenal, 50,000 people worked in the royal ordnance factory and no doubt at that time a large number of Ministry of Defence police officers looked to the various activities on the site. Sadly, on the Woolwich arsenal site today there are just over 2,000 Ministry of Defence jobs and, as Ministers will know, as the Member for the area, I fight a continuing rearguard action to take other people's thieving hands off my defence jobs in Woolwich.
As a result of considerable rationalisation of activities in Woolwich, there are far fewer Ministry of Defence


police in the area than there used to be. That causes the occasional problem. A number of houses in my constituency have been deliberately earmarked for MOD police. Unfortunately, some of those houses stand empty for much longer than they ought to. That is because they are no longer required, as the MOD police are not there in the numbers necessary to make use of them. The Ministry of Defence police play an important part in the community life in my constituency and I am certainly glad to pay my tribute to the important work that they do. In that sense, I am glad to add my welcome to the general support that the Bill has received.
There are some detailed matters that I should like to raise. The first concerns the Ministry of Defence Police Committee, which is provided for in clause 1(5). The committee is to advise the Secretary of State on Ministry of Defence policing, but as the Bill is drafted, the relationship between the Secretary of State, who appoints the committee, and the committee itself appears to be somewhat unequal. For example, the committee is required to report as the Secretary of State
may from time to time require".
That seems to make the committee the poodle of the Secretary of State. If there is a case for an advisory committee of this sort, as surely there must be, it should have the powers to report at somewhat more frequent intervals and to draw the Secretary of State's attention to issues which it considers to be important. I cannot see the logic of creating an advisory committee, only to require it to operate only when the Secretary of State considers appropriate. In the spirit of workers' participation and industrial democracy, which I am glad to see is spreading through the Ministry of Defence, I should like to see the committee given more freedom and more power in its own right. It is important to involve the Ministry of Defence Police Federation in the membership and work of the committee.
The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) referred briefly to the complaints procedure. It is clear that the Ministry of Defence police will come into contact with members of the public; that is the nature of their job. They may well have to deal with members of the public when they are guarding defence establishments. They may have to deal with civilian employees who are working within the establishments. They will face the problem of dealing with demonstrations outside the establishments. In all these activities, there is always the risk that a member of the public will feel that he has been unreasonably or unfairly treated. In those circumstances, he may wish to exercise some right of complaint.
It seems that no provision is made in the Bill for complaints to be made against the Ministry of Defence police, and it would be helpful if the Minister were to explain whether the police force is to be covered by the ordinary Police Complaints Authority or whether some special machinery will have to he introduced. In the interests of natural justice, there must be some provision to deal with the sadly likely possibility that complaints will be made.
What procedures will be followed when members of the Ministry of Defence police have apprehended someone? In the Home Office department police, there are clear procedures governing methods of interrogation that are to be used, and the taking of fingerprints, for example. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us whether the

MOD police will be responsible themselves for interrogating someone whom they have apprehended and for taking fingerprints, or whether these matters will be referred to the civil police. If the MOD police will be exercising such powers, it is important to ensure that they will be following the same sort of procedures as those that are laid down clearly for members of the civil police force.
It seems self-evident that the Ministry of Defence police will have to be armed on occasions. They will be guarding extremely sensitive facilities and material. They may have to contend with many different types of threat. They will certainly have to contend with the threat of terrorism. It seems obvious that they will have to be armed from time to time. Again, it would be helpful if the Minister would tell us what the procedures for issuing firearms to members of the police force are, at what level that power will be excercised, what procedures are to be followed, and what sort of training in firearms will be available to members of the MOD police force. Is it to be given to every member, or will only a select team be given such training?
Jurisdiction has already been mentioned. The Minister explained that the original 15-mile limit around MOD establishments is being removed, and MOD police will have constabulary powers throughout the United Kingdom. In most cases, those powers will be exercised in relation to stated facilities in establishments, or in clearly defined circumstances. In most cases, that is clear and straightforward.
There are two exceptions. One comes in clause 2(3)(c), already referred to in the debate. Under this, the powers can be exercised
in relation to matters connected with anything done under a contract entered into by the Secretary of State".
I strongly support the view that that is an open-ended commitment, and an extremely wide power, not only in terms of the multiplicity of contracts into which the Secretary of State may enter, but also in the sense that a contract may involve a number of different operations in different parts of the country. That is a sweeping power.
If I heard him correctly, the Minister was saying that that power would be exercised in a limited number of specialised cases. That may be so, but, if that is the case, it would be better if the power were drawn rather more narrowly. However, even if it is to be exercised in that narrow way, there are difficulties, referred to by the hon. Member for Salisbury, in the relationships between MOD police and the ordinary, Home Department police forces. We hope that there will be good liaison, and that people will keep each other informed about what is going on. However, we know that, even in an individual police force, there are occasionally problems of communication, for example between specialist groups dealing with narcotics or serious crime, and ordinary members who may not be privy to all those considerations. If that can happen within one police force, there is at least the risk of difficulties between MOD police and ordinary police with such a wide power.
Under clause 2(3)(d), the powers are to be exercised
for the purpose of securing the unimpeded passage
of Ministry of Defence property. I take that to mean that MOD police will be involved in guarding convoys as they travel. That will make sense, but it may mean that a convoy will be passing through more than one jurisdiction, and again there will be difficulties in liaison between MOD police and Home Department police.
These are all important issues. I hope that the Minister can satisfy us on them, if not tonight, in Committee. I want to give the Bill a rather more enthusiastic response than it received from the Labour party Front Bench spokesman, whose support was rather grudging. This is a sensible Bill, which is overdue. It will receive our support, but I hope that we can tidy up some of its awkwardnesses.

Mr. John Watts: I do not wish to detain the House for long. I am seeking information on a fairly narrow point which I would normally pursue by means of a parliamentary question. This morning when I attempted to table a question I was advised by the Table Office that it was out of order because it appeared to be related to business set down in the Orders of the Day, namely, this Bill.
I wish to know the circumstances in which Ministry of Defence police are required to investigate an allegation of assault by one civilian employee upon another at a Ministry of Defence establishment. I hasten to add that at this stage in the debate I do not expect a full reply from my hon. Friend the Minister and that I would be happy to receive a letter about the matter.
My interest arises from the unfortunate experience of one of my constituents who, in 1982, while working in an Ministry of Defence industrial establishment, was the victim of a severe assault by a fellow workman. Regrettably, the management of the establishment did not at the time consider it necessary to invite the Ministry of Defence police to investigate, but subsequent medical reports suggested that the man had sustained fairly substantial injuries — broken bones in the face and damage to the sinuses. The assault also had an unfortunate effect on the man's mental health and subsequently led to his early retirement on medical grounds.
That man did not appear to have the same access to the protection of the police as is available to a civilian in a civilian workplace. If someone was assaulted by a fellow worker in a factory on the Slough industrial estate, he would have little difficulty in calling in the Thames Valley police to investigate. In this instance, the man had no access to police by his volition and, because of a management misjudgment, the Ministry of Defence police were not involved, despite the fact that it had jurisdiction to investigate.
What are the precise instructions under which the management of Ministry of Defence industrial establishments operate? What are the circumstances and the internal procedures that require those managements to ask the Ministry of Defence police to investigate such an assault by one worker upon another?

Mr. Dick Douglas: We have had a very interesting debate. The Minister has been very courteous in presenting the Bill and has allowed a number of interventions.
I do not want to appear grudging about the codification that is before the House. The hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) suggested that he was more warmly disposed to the Bill than members of the Labour party, but I do not think that that is the case. We have given a guarded welcome to the Bill, but it is, an important

measure. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) has already said that we do not have many bites at this cherry and we must try to get the matter right.
In his introductory remarks, the Minister prayed in aid the report of the Select Committee on Defence on the security of military establishments and the Broadbent report. I asked him to state where the Bill was and was not in harmony with the Broadbent report. An important consideration is that of jurisdiction. In paragraph 51, in examining the historical view of the 15-mile radius around Crown property, the Broadbent report says:
We regard it as preferable to relate MDP responsibilities outside a base solely to the pursuit of specific enquiries relating to Crown property, as permitted by legislation or practice, and in consultation with the civil police. In this case a geographical limit becomes irrelevant.
There is some indication that, while we might concede the removal of the 15-mile limit, what is not being conceded is any ability of the MOD police to interfere in or in any way pursue matters outside the perimeter fence that might normally be the responsibility of the Home Department police. The Minister placed great stress on the fact that the Bill does not do that.
The Bill confuses the issue. It is not clear who will be responsible, in certain cases, not for matters of physical security or police services for the MOD inside the perimeter fence, but outside the fence dealing with such matters as disputes in married quarters. I heard of a horrific incident in Rosyth — it is only hearsay — involving the MOD police and a motor car. Certain activities were embarked upon on that motor car. There was no consultation with the Fife constabulary on that matter. There are other events in relation to Coulport in the west of Scotland. I hesitate to mention what happens in another Member's constituency, but the Ministry of Defence police put certain demonstrators, quarantined them so to speak, on land that they thought belonged to the Ministry of Defence; but subsequently I am told that the procurator fiscal in the Strathclyde area refused to prosecute.
We are dealing with fairly delicate matters. As I said to the Minister, the previous procedures have been followed reasonably easily because there has been little dispute. The Minister stressed the fact that there has been a good relationship between the MOD police and the Home Department police and it has been clear who has been the boss in certain areas.
Tangentially, I want to mention the bad drafting of the Bill. Clause 1(3) states:
The Secretary of State shall appoint a chief constable for the Ministry of Defence Police, and they shall operate under the chief constable's direction and control.
I am a long way from Govan high school or Hill Trust school, but it seems that the object has no relationship with the subject. Who are "they"? Surely it should say something such as "the membership shall". I suggest that as a drafting amendment. The Bill is loosely and badly drafted. In that key area of responsibility we are not clear as to the role of the chief constable or what is meant by "direction and control."
My hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan said that, where the Secretary of State appoints the chief constable, who is responsible, I assume, to the Secretary of State, there is a dangerous precedent. The Secretary of State—I know that this has been sanctified by previous


practice—has at his disposal a police force with, if I read it properly, fairly extensive powers outside the perimeter fence.
One of the matters that the Minister raised was the MOD police having responsibility for traffic control. I return to paragraph 53 of the Broadbent report, which says:
With regard to special road convoys, it has been represented to us that MDP escorts should be conferred with powers to control traffic which they do not have at present. We question this requirement for the MDP. Taking into account the evidence from the Associations of Chief Police Officers of Scotland and of England and Wales we recommend that the civil police should provide a pilot for each convoy as the local force alone is aware of all movement factors through its area. This would avoid the need for the MDP to be involved in directing road traffic outside MOD Bases.
I shall not burden the House with further commentary from the Broadbent report, but the Bill specifically extends the MOD police powers in that regard. It is important that powers, such as the control of road traffic and the routeing of dangerous, sensitive cargo, should be under the firm direction and control—I speak only for Fife—of the chief constable of Fife. He alone will have the relevant intelligence on such things as demonstrations, peaceful protests and marches, and thus will be able to say, "Do not take that route. Do not take the Valley Field bypass. Go on the low road." That is an important consideration, to which the Minister should have regard.
The hon. Member for Woolwich, in his wise remarks, said that he thought that the committee established under the Bill should report fairly frequently. I suggest that, when the Bill becomes an Act, the Secretary of State be required to give an annual report on the MOD police to the House. That is the least that we can expect from a consolidation measure.

Dr. Godman: I want to ask my hon. Friend a question on the subject of the annual report in the light of his earlier remarks concerning traffic control powers. Would he expect, in such a report, some details concerning traffic movements and traffic control? That would raise all sorts of issues, one of which is the quality of training in traffic control procedures undertaken by MOD police officers.

Mr. Douglas: My hon. Friend kindly wants to lead me into those matters. I made it clear that I want to restrict the MOD police's role in relation to traffic control.
It would be wrong for me, at this juncture, to lay down what would be embraced in an annual report—that would be for the Committee to determine—but will the Minister concede that it is reasonable, given the nature of the consolidation measure, to try to introduce within the ambit of the Bill some form of annual report to the House?
My last point relates to what we might loosely call "mutual aid". Subsection (2)(a) states the places to which the subsection applies. Subsection (e) refers to
land where the Secretary of State has agreed to provide the services of the Ministry of Defence Police under an agreement notice of which has been published in the appropriate Gazette.
Paragraph (d) lists
land which is in the vicinity of land mentioned in any of paragraphs (a) to (c) above and on which a constable of the police force for the police area in which the first-mentioned land is situated … has asked the Ministry of Defence Police to assist him in the execution of his duties".
That is, loosely, mutual aid.
I do not want to mention the mining dispute, but in Scotland we saw mutual aid being used, and I have no doubt that that happened elsewhere. It was always clear that the chief constable requesting mutual aid would be in charge. There is no sign of that here. Paragraph (d) says that the initiative would come perhaps from the Ministry of Defence police and that is wrong. The Minister is giving me some comfort by nodding. I do not know what the nods mean, but I hope that he will bear what I say in mind when he replies.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: When it comes to aid being given to the Home Department police forces, there is no question but that that would have to be requested by them and the request would not come from the Ministry of Defence police.

Mr. Douglas: Can I press the Minister further? Will he clarify the fact that there will be no question about who will be in charge in the chief police constable's area?

Mr. Hamilton: I am happy to say that there will he no question about that either. The chief constable of the Home Department police force will have jurisdiction.

Mr. Douglas: I am grateful. We shall consider how to embody that in the Bill in Committee.
I give the Bill a guarded welcome. There are particular difficulties in modern times in policing defence establishments. As a member of the Select Committee on Defence, I saw some of the difficulties in relation to the royal ordnance factory at Enfield. Happily, the Ministry of Defence took up our recommendations and improvements were made.
When the Bill has been improved in Committee, it will give status to the Ministry of Defence police and make it clear that their role is restricted to activities strictly related to MOD property and to areas within the perimeter fence and that when they come outside the perimeter fence their responsibility and duties are devolved to the Home Department police of the particular area in which the bases reside.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I approach the Bill very much in the spirit of the concluding sentences of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas). I have two interests to declare. First, in my part of East Anglia I probably have more military power than in any other part of the country. There are the United States air force bases at Mildenhall and Lakenheath, the Royal Air Force base at Honington and I share with my right hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) the Thetford battle area. So we have quite a lot of military and military police in my area.
My concern is that the bases should be properly protected against intruders of any kind, against thieves, and, above all, against the occasional demonstrators who turn up for no useful purpose and do unnecessary damage to the Ministry of Defence's property. I want to see the Ministry of Defence police effective and therefore they must have the proper statutory powers. It is amazing that, as my hon. Friend the Minister implied, we have gone on for so long without a Bill of this kind.
My second interest is well known to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have represented the Police Federation in the


House for many years and there has been no Bill touching on police powers to which I have not made some contribution.
Therefore, I welcome the Bill. It is overdue, but it is a good piece of legislation. I am concerned only about the interface between the activities of the military police and those of the civilian police. In congratulating Sir Ewen Broadbent who, with his committee did a first class job, I have to say that their consideration of the matter seems to have been a good deal more profound than the Bill implies when one reads it for the first time.
The Bill sets out clearly the powers and privileges that the Ministry of Defence constables will henceforth exercise, and that is good. However, it does not define their duties or their responsibilities. It does not, for example, state in any place that they are subject to the codes of conduct that are placed upon all of our civilian police, in respect of the way in which they treat citizens, whom they arrest, detain, hold in custody, stop, search or question. Those codes of conduct should apply if the military police are to exercise jurisdiction against civilians outside Ministry of Defence property. However, nothing in the Bill suggests that those codes of conduct would apply.
There is nothing in the Bill to state that the discipline code of the civilian police applies to the Ministry of Defence police. I am sure that it does, but the Bill does not say so. As has been mentioned, nothing in the Bill deals with the complaints procedure. I suppose that if a civilian wished to complain about the actions of the military police, he would have full access to the Police Complaints Authority. However, that is not made clear in the Bill.
I should like to know more about the powers of the Ministry of Defence police when they are in hot pursuit, because it is not clear how far they may go. I should like to know much more about the arrangements for firearms and the training that goes with that. I should also like to know more about the operations of the CID.
However, my primary concern is that the parameters should be clearly defined, and that does not appear to have been done. I referred in an intervention to the extensive powers of anything to do with contracts that have been entered into by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. That power goes too wide and should be defined more closely in Committee.
Finally, I am delighted that the military police are to have the statutory right to establish a Defence Police Federation and I hope that that federation will enter into the closest of relations with the police federations in England and Wales, and Northern Ireland. I am sure that both bodies will wish that to happen. However, it is important that similar arrangements as exist for the police federations as set up by their own Acts of Parliament should apply to the Defence Police Federation also. It is especially important that we are clear as to whether the voluntary funds of the Defence Federation may be used to engage legal counsel to defend its members when they are had up on disciplinary charges, if those charges involve the risk of dismissal or demotion. That should not relate to any other circumstances because that would not apply to the Police Federation either, but in the cases to which I have referred, the powers should be the same.
I welcome the Bill and regret that I shall not have the opportunity to take part in the Committee stage, all being

well. Hon. Members have raised several questions to which my hon. Friend the Minister will wish to respond in his usual courteous manner.

Mr. Bruce George: We spend a great deal of our time in this Chamber scrutinising the police. It appears that their every action is the subject of parliamentary questions or debates. Their activities are seen on television and, if they make mistakes, as they very often do, those mistakes are paraded in the courts, in front of television cameras and in television studios.
I do not wish to be seen to be anti-police, far from it, because any political party that is perceived as being anti-police will, rightly, incur the wrath of their electors. However, my hon. Friends and I are very concerned about the work of the police, and rightly so.
How much time do we spend in this House talking about the work of the military police and the Ministry of Defence police which appear to be somewhat confused in this debate, as though they were elements of the same organisation? Of course, they are distinct.
How much time is spent debating the private security industry, which is of great interest to me? All are important in crime prevention and, sometimes, in crime detection, yet we seem to have a top heavy interest in the Home Department police to the detriment of a large body of people — perhaps 250,000 — who are engaged in the private security industry in some form. I wish that our interest was a little more even handed.
I welcome the Bill as it gives us a brief opportunity—I hope that the Committee experience will be brief too—

Mr. Douglas: Volunteer!

Mr. George: I willingly volunteer to serve. There are no Whips present, but no doubt they will eagerly accept my offer to serve.
The MOD police involves just under 5,000 men and women who perform a difficult task. In some ways, it is more stressful work than that of the Home Department police, but it is done in the midst of great ignorance, suspicion and, in some cases, hostility.
The debate has revealed our ignorance. I am not an expert, but I have taken the trouble to talk to people, so I can shed some light on some of the misapprehensions that have been paraded. The MOD police and its Police Federation do not withhold information from us—we are simply unwilling to ask questions. To listen to some hon. Members, one would think that the MOD police operate as some sort of snatch squad who crouch behind barbed wire fences waiting for an opportunity to pounce on some innocent bystander and subject them to the authoritarian disciplinary code of the MOD police.
Others appear to argue that our constitutional rights can best be preserved if the MOD police know their duty and stay behind their line as we are obliged to when we speak. That would be appallingly inefficient.
I ask the Minister to resist pressures that may come from the police who want to preserve their pitch and keep the MOD police behind their barriers. There is enough work for all forces of law and order. Demarcation disputes should be decided by the MOD. I hope that it will be reasonable and not be bounced by some police officers who may want to perpetuate the image of the MOD police as a second-class force.
If anybody is asking, I have no connection with the MOD police.

Sir Antony Buck: I have no financial interest save for the fact that I represent a garrison town. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what matters here is close co-operation between the civilian police and the MOD police at what might be described as grass-roots level? In my constituency, that seems to be working pretty well. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is what we should concentrate on.

Mr. George: I am grateful for that intervention. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) talked about an interface. It is vital that the different arms of crime prevention are co-ordinated as efficiently as possible.
This is the debate that they tried to ban. What was to be an innocuous debate suddenly assumed greater importance. We heard from the Prime Minister this afternoon that the affairs of the MOD police were not the concern of this House. Perhaps the right hon. Lady had not seen the Order Paper. No doubt she was subsequently enlightened.
I am delighted to say that we occasionally have the responsibility to legislate. That does not happen often with defence issues; perhaps only twice a year do we come across a Bill dealing with defence matters. It is therefore important that we are allowed to debate the affairs, including the deployment, of the MOD police.
Were the Prime Minister right, we would be undertaking an illicit activity, and no doubt the doors to the Chamber would be pushed in as ferociously as was Duncan Campbell's door at the weekend, and we should be duly admonished for entering an area outside our responsibilities. It is clear that we are discussing a matter that is within our responsibilities, and I trust that we shall be able to assist the Ministry of Defence in improving this modest but important measure.
I had intended to embark on an historic analysis of this issue, but in view of the mickey-taking indulged in by hon. Members speaking following the Minister, it would be unwise of me to pontificate on historical matters. [Interruption.] It is regrettable that those of us with an historical bent are treated with derision.
Suffice it to say that when the MOD was unified—at least, unified in theory—it took seven years before the forces of the separate services were brought within the orbit of the MOD police. Despite the important contribution that another place has made to the deliberations on this legislation, there has emerged a series of contradictions and anomalies. We are now endeavouring to bring some order into the legislation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) pointed out, using his Scots logic, at the same time rightly admonishing the draftsmen for their misdemeanours. The Bill will tidy up the statute book to a degree, and the end product of our labours will, I believe, be beneficial.
I am delighted to say that in the last couple of years the MOD police, now 4,800 strong, has increased in numbers. When the House of Commons Defence Committee in 1983 made two inquiries into the MOD police, the numbers were much lower, I would like to think that that Committee was instrumental in bringing to the attention of all concerned the degree of overstretch that was then suffered by the MOD police.
Recruitment is proceeding well, with about 700 personnel being recruited annually. The personnel serving in establishments work sometimes singly and sometimes in groups of up to 250. They are deployed at 150 MOD bases, including at Royal Ordnance factories, in public limited companies, at the Royal Mint at the headquarters of bodies such as MI5 and M16, but more of that later.
The MOD police perform a wide range of demanding tasks, including deterring terrorists. Consider their role at the Royal Ordnance factories, which could be targets for terrorists. The Defence Committee, I recall, visited Enfield and saw a vast array of guns and armaments of all kinds. I am pleased to say that such establishments are better guarded now than they were when we paid our visits in 1983.
The MOD police have many mundane tasks to perform, such as checking the entries and exits to buildings. They also perform sensitive tasks such as patrolling MOD property which could be visited by those whose political persuasions might not be four square with those of the MOD. There is a criminal investigation department and a marine department; and it is a wide array of powers and responsibilities and functions that we are addressing.
When the Select Committee on Defence made its two important reports some four years ago, we looked at how the Ministry of Defence police were operating, because we had focussed our attention on one specific area, namely, the Royal Ordnance factories. We brought the attention of the MOD to a number of areas that concerned us very much. We said in our report:
The MDP have argued for many years that the complicated body of legislation from which their present powers derive should be consolidated into a single measure. With the added legal complication of the residual MDP presence at the privatised ROFs, such an act could clarify and, where necessary, redefine the MDP's powers; we believe that the case for it is stronger than ever and we recommend that the Government introduce the necessary legislation within the present Parliament.
They were not quite that quick—1983–84—but what the Government did they did quite typically: they set up a committee of inquiry, the Broadbent committee, which duly reported and 17 of those 24 recommendations were approved. I hope that the Minister, if not now then in Committee, following the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West, will tell us which were not accepted and why. It would be very helpful.
So the Broadbent committee reported, the Ministry of Defence took a little time, and this legislation was produced, which virtually everyone present this evening has endorsed and which the Ministry of Defence police have certainly endorsed. There appear to be some potential disputes with certain senior police officers over matters of jurisdiction and identification, but no doubt these will be resolved in Committee.

Mr. O'Neill: The impression seems to have been created that Members on the Opposition Front Bench are somewhat grudging in our welcome. The word I would prefer to use is "guarded". We are never very sure what we are letting ourselves in for until we look at the Bill rather more closely than we do on Second Reading. Perhaps my hon. Friend will accept that our welcome is guarded rather than grudging.

Mr. George: I must read Hansard tomorrow. if I used the word "grudging", I shall humbly apologise.
I would like to return to the question of the MOD police and the royal ordnance factories, because it is very important and comes within the scope of the legislation. Anyone who is interested in seeing Ministers and senior civil servants undergoing the equivalent of the rack, as most of us surely are, should read with interest the report of the Select Committee on Defence on physical security of military installations in the United Kingdom. This report contains a devastating critique of one decision, namely the decision to privatise security in the royal ordnance factories. The committee said that the
first proposal crystallised in late 1983 and, in our view, was extremely ill-considered".
The Ministry of Defence had the good grace to withdraw the proposal to privatise security at the ordnance factories. Instead, it established a temporary regime to cover the transitional period between the old-style royal ordnance factories and the soon-to-be-flogged-off and privatised Royal Ordnance plc which, I understand, currently has four companies sniffing around, with the object of purchasing: the Ministry of Defence police were to be retained. The MOD police are still subject to threat. The MOD, perhaps as a result of pressure from the royal ordnance factories, are considering reneging on what I thought was their initial commitment, and perhaps the MOD police will be phased out from the guarding of factories that will eventually be privatised. I hope that the Government will enshrine in this legislation, in Committee, what I thought they had given as an assurance to the Defence Select Committee, that the MOD police will remain. After all, the MOD police will operate in the privatised dockyards. Even when those companies are privatised, the MOD police will still be operating. If they are operating under a private regime, what they will be guarding will be the same.
The Royal Ordnance factories, with their range of arms, explosives and ammunition, offer immense attractions to terrorists and extremist organisations. I want the Minister to say, in Committee or in this Chamber this evening, that he will not permit, if not privatisation of security, that the hammering that the contract security industry secured in the initial decision will result in the MOD resuscitating the lunacy of handing over the guarding of the Royal Ordnance factories to contract security. But it is clear that the Royal Ordnance factories will probably lack their own guard force. That would be totally wrong for a number of reasons. Despite their relatively small numbers, the MOD police are uniquely suited to guard the Royal Ordnance factories at the present time. How?
The MOD police possess constabulary powers, which any in-house security force will not possess. They enjoy the confidence of the work force. I am not saying that there is no in-house security force that does not have the confidence of the working people they are operating with, but I say without any fear of contradiction that the reputation of the MOD police in the premises they guard is high. MOD police are empowered to use firearms. They do not carry them, but they have access to them and they are trained in using them. Therefore, their possession of and access to arms is a deterrent to any terrorist or extremist who wants to break into an ordnance factory.
The Minister can well argue that companies like British Aerospace have their own guarding force. Nevertheless,

while it is very difficult to seize a tank or an aircraft, it is very desirable to seize what is contained within the premises of an ordnance factory. The MOD police are disciplined. There is a complaints procedure that can be activated against them, they have the deterrent value of having arms, they are well-trained by an 11-week training programme, which is almost as long as the police training programme, and they come from the same pool of recruitment as the police.
There are many arguments why the MOD police should remain in the privatised Royal Ordnance factories. If the Minister does not wish to believe me, I suggest that he consults paragraph 81 and onwards of Volume 1 of the second report from the Defence Select Committee, which uses the phraseology that,
if it is in the MOD's mind to establish an in-house security force, certain criteria must be used.
I suggest that the Defence Committee, in putting down these stringent criteria, realised that only the MOD police would be able to satisfy them. The Minister should consult with his colleagues and enshrine within this legislation the survival of the MOD police within Royal Ordnance factories. This Bill will consolidate previous dispersed legislation into a single Act. It will confer upon the MOD police powers to operate outside MOD establishments but only in specified places. This is not in any way the threat that some people see. Allowing the Ministry of Defence police to move outside the perimeter is sensible and efficient so long as it is clearly defined where they may operate outside their own establishments. It seems a nonsense if a crime committed within a Ministry of Defence establishment cannot be investigated by the CID branch of the MOD police because the person who they wish to interview lives two miles outside the perimeter fence. It is logical and sensible for this to happen.
After all, for some 125 years the Ministry of Defence police and their predecessors have been allowed to operate within 15 miles of the establishment that they have been guarding under the Metropolitan Police Act 1860. So this is not being brought in suddenly by the Ministry of Defence to allow these men to wander around the countryside arresting innocent people. They will be constrained. I do not think that there will be the slightest threat about which fears have been expressed from both sides of the House this evening.
There will be a police committee under the Secretary of State for Defence. It will contain Ministry of Defence personnel and outsiders and will be responsible for efficiency, complaints and discipline. Will there be a representative of the Defence Police Federation on the committee? In another place the spokesman for the Labour party, Lord Graham, asked if the new committee would have a relationship analogous to the relationship between the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Police Federation. If there is to be equality, and if the MOD police are to be held in the same high respect and esteem as their fellow police officers, there should be an analogous relationship. I hope that the Minister will clarify that.
The similarity of uniforms was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill). Yes, the Ministry of Defence police look remarkably like ordinary police, but in many ways they are ordinary police operating within certain premises. I do not see why they should be expected to wear yellow epaulettes like traffic wardens. I speak in no way disparagingly of traffic


wardens, who are pursuing a different career pattern with different responsibilities. But the MOD police are recruited from the same source as civilian police, they have an 11-week training programme, they have training in firearms, they have a CID department, they have a marine department, they have an excellent communications centre and in many ways they do the same job as the civilian police. I cannot see why they should be expected to dress up like private security guards simply because some police officers feel that there should be a distinction. I do not think that anyone has complained for many years about the uniforms of the MOD police. It would be detrimental to their morale if they were perceived somehow as being second class and different. That needs to be clarified.
The complaints procedure also needs to be clarified. From listening to the debate one might get the impression that the MOD police operate as a force immune from public criticism. Several hon. Members have received from the Defence Police Federation a brief; I did not intend to read from it, but, because of the confusion, it may help if I quote from the section on discipline, complaints and administration:
Members of MDP, as well as being subject to the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984, and the Crown Prosecution Service, are governed by the same discipline and complaints regulations (with some very minor amendments) as other police officers with assistant chief constables presiding at disciplinary hearings relating to the less serious charges. The more serious cases are presided over by the chief constable.
The MDP is accountable to the Secretary of State for Defence in the same way as the Metropolitan Police force is accountable to the Home Secretary. There is an MOD administrative back-up which is also, in some ways, similar to that provided by the receiver for the Metropolitan Police, namely dealing with administration, aspects of personnel management, finance, logistics, and relations with the Ministry of Defence and Members of Parliament. Like other chief constables, CCMDP is independent of political or civil service control in operational matters including crime investigations.
The MOD police would be wise to amplify upon that section of the brief in Committee so that Committee members are in no doubt about the complaints procedure involving MOD police. That would be very helpful.
Further to what was said earlier, I must explain that there were no MOD police involved in the convoy incident in Wiltshire. Perhaps the MOD police were confused with the Marines or whoever else was present.
Another issue was also raised about MOD police breathalysing ordinary citizens on public highways. I advise hon. Members who may believe that to accept that there are many roads that may appear to be public roads but which are owned by the MOD. The MOD maintain, clean and light those roads. I am advised that Queen's Avenue in Aldershot is such a road. Roads may run through MOD premises which come within the control of the MOD police. Therefore, if someone is under the influence of excessive amounts of alchohol or believed to be so and committing an offence, he may be breathalysed and apprehended. That is not an example of MOD police somehow usurping the functions of the civilian police and causing constitutional anxieties.
In conclusion, I want to raise an issue upon which I seek the Minister's advice. I referred to this point at Prime Minister's Question Time this afternoon. It has come to our attention that within the MOD there are proposals to eliminate MOD police from the guarding and policing of blocks housing MI5 and MI6 offices. If that is so, I must

tell the MOD that that would be inadvisable. Perhaps those policing functions are to be devolved upon a contract security firm. I do not believe that the MOD would be silly enough to do that. However, that is possible. It is more likely that the MOD or the Home Office would state that the Property Services Agency security guards could do the job in place of the MOD police. That may be cheaper, because that security force already comprises security guards. They have no constabulary powers. If a crisis threatens, their job is to get behind a barrier and wait for the Metropolitan police to arrive to do the job. That is in no way an imputation of their bravery, that is their job. I argue that buildings as sensitive as MI5 and MI6 officestare qualitatively different from any other premises guarded by MOD police at the present time. Security of this order cannot be compromised. A couple of weeks ago the Prime Minister said that two things were above party politics. One was national security and the other was defence.
If the object is to save money, how much money will be saved by moving out the Ministry of Defence police? Their criticism of this prospective decision is not that they will lose jobs, because I understand that officers will be redeployed. It is made for reasons of national security. It is far more desirable to have men with training, expertise, discipline, a complaints procedure and all the other attributes of the Ministry of Defence police guarding these premises than to change the arrangements. I hope that this decision will be reconsidered and reversed.
We are debating a matter of great importance and I am pleased that, judged by the standards of attendance for late night debates, attendance is reasonably good. This issue affects more than the Ministry of Defence police. I am delighted that the affairs of this dedicated group of men and women are being debated in the House. Committee proceedings and further proceedings in the House will facilitate greater understanding of the work of the force and that is surely to everyone's advantage.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: May I start by appologising to the House? I have been told by people not a million miles from my private office and the Dispatch Box that I said in my speech:
Obviously, it is not the responsibility of the Home Department police to pursue serious threats which materialise, but the MDP will often make the initial, immediate reaction to good effect.
I should have said that it is the responsibility of Home Department police, and I should like to put the record straight on that.
The hon. Members for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) and for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) mentioned the difficult problem of traffic control on the public highway. Broadbent recommended in paragraph 111 that convoy procedures should be reviewed, and this is being done. He qualified this by adding:
If the local police provide escorts for road traffic duty the MDP would not need powers to control road traffic".
At the moment, when the MDP are deployed on convoy duties they are usually accompanied by Home Department police force constables, who direct the traffic as required. Because the convoy may cross many boundaries, the continuous assistance of Home Department police forces cannot be guaranteed at all times. Therefore, the Ministry of Defence police need to be able to direct traffic, if necessary, pending the arrival of local police forces.
The hon. Member for Clackmannan also spoke about the Police Committee and the fact that the chief constable was not a member of that committee. I can assure him that the chief constable will be in attendance at committees, playing the same role as chief constables in Home Department police forces. The hon. Gentleman also spoke about accountability. The Ministry of Defence police force is responsible to a Cabinet Minister, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, via the Ministry of Defence Police Committee, which will have outside members. Therefore, it is accountable to Parliament. Moreover, the members of the force are on oath to administer the law in the community in which they serve, and they have the same duties and responsibilities for administering the law within Ministry of Defence establishments as their Home Department police force colleagues in the community.
The hon. Member for Clackmannan also mentioned discipline. The Defence Police Federation has asked us to amend the Bill to allow it to represent MDP members at disciplinary proceedings and to allow legal representation in disciplinary proceedings in the same way as in the Home Department police forces. I think that that also answers the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths). The appropriate amendment is being drafted and will be proposed in Committee by the Government. This will bring the MDP into line with Home Department police forces.
The hon. Gentleman also spoke about uniforms and I think that this was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). The Ministry of Defence police is a civil police force with full constabulary powers. It is correct that its officers should wear recognisable police uniform for the benefit of the public. Their uniform, is distinguished by cap badges.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) reminded us of the recent convoy accident. As the hon. Member for Walsall, South observed, armed marines were at the scene of the accident. He said—I must take his word for it—that they did not understand the rules of local police primacy. That may or may not be the case, but I would argue that if the Ministry of Defence police had been present they would probably have understood the rules. Before we become too carried away by all the complications, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury would do well to talk to some of the more junior police officers in Wiltshire and ask them about co-operation with the Ministry of Defence police. Our evidence—this was mentioned by the hon. Member for Walsall, South—is that co-operation is much better at grass-roots level than above. It seems that chief constables are likely to feel that co-operation is less good.
It has been said that chief constables are not represented on the Police Committee. The chief of Her Majesty's inspectorate and Her Majesty's Inspector of Police in Scotland will both be on the committee. They were both former chief constables. Although existing chief constables will not be represented, it should help that former chief constables will be members of it.
The hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds spoke about complaints against the police. The Ministry of Defence Police Committee will not be responsible for public complaints against the Ministry of Defence police,

although it will take account of any that are substantiated and recommend changes in its methods. An independent complaints procedure is operated, under which the Police Complaints Authority is advised of all complaints and is obliged to supervise the more serious inquiries.
The hon. Member for Woolwich suggested that the Ministry of Defence Police Committee would be a poodle of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I think that it has been proved that there will be some high-powered people on the committee, and I do not think that it will be anyone's poodle.
The hon. Member referred to the Defence Police Federation attending the meetings of the Police Committee and asked whether it would have any voting rights. The Department and the Ministry of Defence police staff associations have agreed that there may be occasions when the associations, including the Defence Police Federation, should have access to meetings of the Ministry of Defence Police Committee. The associations may also make written representations to the Committee. No vote will be taken at these proceedings.
The hon. Member for Woolwich and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds talked about firearms. The use of firearms is always a serious matter because of the possibility of injury, or even death, that arises from their use. This includes innocent people who are not involved in the offence to which the use of firearms is related. Firearms are issued to Ministry of Defence police officers only if they are fully qualified to use the types of weapon that are to be carried and only when the order for their issue has been given by the chief constable after authorisation by the Secretary of State.
Reference has been made to special constables within the Ministry of Defence police. The requirement for a special constable scheme is being reviewed. If it is decided to adopt such a scheme, the Bill will provide for it in clause 1(1) without the need for an amendment.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West spoke about the Broadbent report and said — I think that this is a summary of the report's recommendations—that it was preferable to limit the activities of the Ministry of Defence police to Crown property. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the Bill confuses the issue of responsibility outside the perimeter fence. Let us suppose that someone who lived in a married quarter close to a Ministry of Defence establishment was assaulted and telephoned the Ministry of Defence police in the knowledge that its officers were nearer and likely to come to him or her rather sooner than would the nearest police force of the Home Department. In those circumstances, it would be only right if the Ministry of Defence policeman responded to the call and went to the aid of the caller. It is obviously critical that he communicates with the local Home Department police force and it would be wrong if he said, "No, put down your telephone, I am not going to help, although I can be round quickly. Ring up the Home Department police force, which may take longer." That would be irresponsible, and it would be in such circumstances that people would look to the MOD police to come to their aid.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Walsall, South shares my love of history. He made the same point about whether the Police Federation would attend Police Committee meetings, and I hope that I have cleared up that point. He asked whether the MOD police would continue to operate in Royal Ordnance factories. The Government agreed that the MOD police would be


retained for a minimum period of three years and that their retention would be reviewed after 18 months. The arrangements for this review have commenced, and it would be premature to anticipate the outcome. The security threat, the present physical security arrangements and the views of the civil police will be considered before a decision is taken, as naturally will be the wishes of Royal Ordnance plc, and any comments made by the Police Federation, other trade unions concerned, the Chief Police Officers Association, and the Select Committee on Defence.
The hon. Member for Walsall, South also raised the difficult question of the MDP guarding Security Service buildings. I am not responsible for answering questions on the Security Service. However. I can say that Ministry of Defence property may be guarded either by the MOD police or by the guard force. The criteria for the type of protection essentially depends on the neccessity for constabulary powers. For obvious security reasons, I am not prepared to say which type of guards are used at any of our properties, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand.
This has been a constructive debate. I thank all hon. Members for their contribution and I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — Mrs. E. B Hutchinson

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Durant.]

Mr. Bernard Conlan: The matter that I wish to bring before the House may involve either total incompetence and uninterest by the Foreign Office or a complete and utter unconcern on the part of the Spanish Government for the basic rights of justice for people who visit Spain. It may be a combination of both those factors.
Mr. and Mrs. Hutchinson of Gateshead, constituents of mine, were holidaying in Malaga at the beginning of 1983. On 26 March, they were involved, as pedestrians, in a road accident in which Mrs. Hutchinson died, and Mr. Hutchinson received serious injuries. Mr. Hutchinson suffered damage so severe that he could not recall anything about the circumstances of the accident. Mrs. Hutchinson's body was returned to Tyneside for the funeral.
Subsequently, solicitors were consulted by Mr. Hutchinson, and a Spanish lawyer was obtained to represent the family's interest at any court proceedings. Whether there have been any court proceedings is not known. There has been complete silence from the Spanish authorities, and no information can be obtained.
The number two magistrates' court in Marbella, which appears to have responsibility for proceedings arising out of the accident, adamantly refuses to release police reports or any other information relating to the case. Yet Mr. Hutchinson has a clear, unimpeachable case against the driver of the vehicle if culpability can be shown. In addition, the coroner at Gateshead has a statutory duty, even though death occurred overseas, to conduct an inquest into the cause of death.
Both Mr. Hutchinson and the coroner have been denied all appropriate information, and that information must be in the hands of the court in Marbella. The pretence is that
there may be a criminal proceeding still pending".
Criminal proceedings pending after four years?
Her Majesty's consul in Malaga has tried, all this time, to obtain the information that is required; and I pay the highest tribute to him for his work. However, he has been unable to get access to the documentation on the case. The consul has done his very best, but he has constantly come up against a wall of silence.
The Foreign Office has been involved for a long time in correspondence with the solicitors who act for Mr. Hutchinson, the coroner and myself. Indeed, the coroner has displayed a degree of patience and endurance the like of which he should not be expected to bear.
The Spanish judicial system prevents the imparting of information even in cases where individual injustice is at stake. I have mentioned the efforts of our consul in Malaga and also mentioned the involvement of the Foreign Office, but that is not all. I am sure that the House will be interested to learn that no less an august body than the International Police organisation — commonly known as Interpol—has also been involved but again with the same result—no information.
Recently, I approached the Spanish ambassador in London and I asked if he could do anything to break the conspiracy of silence. The ambassador, in a most polite and courteous reply, said:


in Spain the Judiciary is wholly independent of the Executive, therefore, it would not be appropriate for me to request the Court to do something which under Spanish law is inappropriate.
I can fully understand and appreciate the delicate balance between the courts and Government, but I cannot understand the fantasy of the denial of justice.
The millions of British people who are delighted to take their annual holiday in Spain may wish to consider the risks they are obviously taking should a Hutchinson type tragedy occur. Although most sensible people take out holiday insurance, I wonder if the insurance companies here would pay out in the absence of information on the cause of accident or death. My guess is that they would not. Therefore, the insurance premiums that holidaymakers are paying are a waste of money.
Spain is a full partner of this country in NATO and the EEC. What a partner?
As I have already made clear, the consul in Malaga has done his utmost to unravel this sorry mess. The same cannot be said for the Foreign Office. Why has the Foreign Office not taken the initiative to raise the issue at a level higher than the consul? Why has the British ambassador in Madrid not been asked to lend his weight? Why should it be necessary for a matter such as this to be raised in the House of Commons? Those questions need to be addressed. I hope sincerely that the incident involving the death of Mr. Hutchinson's wife, which has haunted him for four years, is not simply small fry in the complicated rounds of international diplomacy.
I want to say to the Under-Secretary of State that the effective representation of this country overseas means the full protection of millions of British people during the time they are out of the country. It means ensuring and protecting the rights, liberties and privileges of our people who are overseas for whatever reason. Above all, it means ensuring that justice is obtained.
The Hutchinson family has been decimated by the tragic events of 1983. It is time that their worries, concerns and anxieties were brought to an end.
With the greatest respect to the Under-Secretary of State, who I know is responsible for the consular service, I believe that this matter should be dealt with by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. He should take up the issue of the lack of information regarding the tragedy that has befallen the Hutchinson family with his opposite number in Madrid.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Eggar): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Mr. Conlan) for raising this sad case and for drawing the House's attention to the delays that occurred in the attempts to find out the circumstances in which Mrs. Hutchinson so tragically died. I should like to express my sympathy to her family not only for their sad loss but for the anguish and uncertainty to which the delays must have given rise.
Let me immediately put it on the record that I do not accept the criticism that the hon. Gentleman has made of the role that the Foreign Office has played centrally in London, although I am grateful to him for the kind remarks that he made about our consul in Malaga, whom

I met in June when I was in Spain; he has been our consul there for a number of years and has carried out his job extremely conscientiously.
I ask the hon. Member to bear with me while I go through the chronology as it appears to us. Our consulate in Malaga was first asked in July 1983 by Her Majesty's coroner for Gateshead to request from the court at Marbella copies of the accident report and other relevant information. The consul wrote to the court and the court replied that it could not meet the consul's request, as the passing of copies of their proceedings was expressly forbidden by Spanish law. The coroner was informed of that on 22 July 1983 and advised to make inquiries through Interpol. That advice had already been given to the coroner by the consular department of the Foreign Office in London.
As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the coroner also received a negative report from Interpol, which stated that the Spanish court would not divulge information unless it was requested through a rogatory commission, which is also known as a letter of request, and stating also that the rogatory commission would normally be sent through diplomatic channels.
In January 1984, in response to the information from Interpol, the coroner consulted the Foreign Office about the procedures for a letter of request. On 27 January 1984, he was advised to consult the Master's secretary's department of the Royal Courts of Justice. That is the usual channel through which letters of request reach us for onward transmission to the appropriate authorities in foreign countries. In other words, that is the normal procedure that is followed.
The hon. Gentleman wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney)—the then Under-Secretary of State—on 23 February 1984 about the case and expressed his concern about the lack of information. My hon. Friend replied on 12 March 1984 and repeated the advice that the coroner should consult the Master's secretary's department. That advice was again repeated in the reply of my noble Friend the Baroness Young on 23 September 1986. It was not until 8 January 1987 that we learned that the Master's secretary's department had been unable to assist the coroner, for what I understand were technical legal reasons.
Meanwhile, as a result of a further letter from the coroner, the consul in Malaga approached the court in Marbella again, in January 1985. The consul was informed that proceedings against the driver of the car involved had not yet been completed and that the papers were with the public prosecutor's office in Malaga. No date for a hearing had been fixed. The court again confirmed to our consul that it was not permitted to reveal the contents of the proccedings.
That information was passed both to the coroner and to the Hutchinson family's solicitors. The consulate repeated its advice to the solicitors — which had previously been given in April 1983—that a local lawyer be instructed to protect their client's interests.
At the request of the coroner, the consul approached the court again in August 1985. The result was the same again. The reply was that no date had been fixed for a hearing, and no information about the case could be given to the consul since the local lawyer acting for the family was fully aware of the position. However, the Spanish court was either unwilling or unable even to provide the name of the local lawyer to which it had referred.
As a last resort, we have, as the hon. Gentleman knows, agreed that the coroner may submit a letter of request direct to the nationality and treaty department of the Foreign Office for onward transmission to the Spanish authorities. That is, in other words, as an alternative to going through the Master's secretary. But we have to say again that there is no guarantee that the Spanish court will accept a letter of request which is submitted in that rather unorthodox way. The truth is that we are unable to force the Spanish court to provide us with the information which the hon. Gentleman and his constituents require.
Let me turn for a moment from the particular case which the hon. Gentleman raised to the general. This problem of getting documents from Spanish courts is, of course, tragic, but this instance is far from being an isolated one. I frequently write to hon. Members on both sides of the House having to give a similar message. The diffculty of obtaining information from Spanish courts is of long standing.
If the local police make inquiries into an accident, a theft or some other incident, their reports are passed to the appropriate court and become part of that court's documents. Those documents are, under Spanish law, confidential to the court, and while interested parties and their legal representatives may apply for access, but not for copies, that ability to obtain access is specifically not extended to consuls. It is for that reason that we have consistently advised the hon. Gentleman's constituents' solicitors to engage local Spanish lawyers.
I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has been in correspondence with the Spanish ambassador about this case since the coroner sent to our consul in Malaga a copy of the Spanish ambassador's letter of 3 December 1986 to the hon. Gentleman. In that the ambassador made it clear, as the hon. Gentleman stated, that the confidentiality, even secrecy, of the summary of evidence held by a Spanish court is the key to the way in which the Spanish legal system operates.
In that letter, the ambassador also referred to article 23 of the Anglo-Spanish consular convention of 1961, under which British consuls in Spain have the right to approach all Spanish authorities, including the judiciary. It was by virtue of that specific article that the consul was able to make the various approaches to the court which I have already outlined. Nevertheless, as the ambassador made clear, the Spanish judiciary is wholly independent of the Executive, as, it is in Britain. As a result, Spanish courts, in accordance with their properly constituted rules, almost invariably refuse, in my experience and that of our consuls, to make court documents available to consuls. That is the position.
When British visitors abroad find themselves in difficulties, it is local law and procedures which must apply. Therefore, I cannot repeat my advice too strongly of the advisibility of appointing a local lawyer to protect the interests of British citizens when they have difficulties in Spain. As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is aware, our consul can provide lists of suitable lawyers, but consuls are not legal officers and it is not part of their function to offer legal advice; nor can they represent British nationals in court. I know that the hon. Gentleman is fully aware of that, but there is sometimes misunderstanding on that point outside the House.
The hon. Gentleman understandably asked that the general position that I have described and about which he has expressed concern should be raised by my right hon.

and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary. I am delighted to advise the hon. Member that, although the specific case of his constituent was not raised by my right hon. and learned Friend, he did raise with the Spanish Foreign Minister when they met in London a few days ago the problems that we were having in Spain.
In addition, six months ago I made a week-long visit to Spain and had extensive discussions not only with our consuls, including our consul in Malaga, but also with the Spanish authorities in Madrid on consular matters generally. I did not raise specific cases, but I discussed the general problem that we are having in getting speedy resolutions of cases before the Spanish courts involving British citizens.
I must advise the hon. Gentleman that the Spanish feel as strongly as we do about the division of responsibility between the Executive and the judiciary. I know that the hon. Gentleman will be fully aware of the reaction that would ensue in this country if the Spanish ambassador, or any other embassy, sought to put pressure on the English judiciary to resolve a matter other than through the normal course of events. We should rightly regard that as intolerable, and we must take account of that factor when we make representations to the Spanish authorities.
I should like to assure the hon. Gentleman that I expect to see His Excellency the Spanish ambassador within the next few days and I shall raise several consular cases with him, specifically and in general, to try to improve the ways in which we can effect a good liaison between the Foreign Office and the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs to see if there is anything that we can do to unblock delays and increase the speed with which such cases can be processed.
I should like to explain briefly what consuls can and cannot do. Consuls can issue emergency passports. They can contact relatives and friends and ask them to help with money and tickets. They can advise people on how to transfer funds. In an emergency, they can advance money against a sterling cheque for up to £50, provided that the cheque is supported by a banker's card. From 1 January this year, under new regulations, they can, in exceptional circumstances, make an advance of £20 against a signed undertaking to repay, to travellers who have no funds to get to an airport for a departure in the next few hours.
They can, as a last resort, and in exceptional circumstances, make a repayable loan for repatriation to the United Kingdom, but there is no law that says that consuls must do this, and they will need to be satisfied that there is absolutely no one else a traveller knows who can help with funding. They can provide lists of lawyers, interpreters and doctors. They can arrange for next of kin to be informed of an accident or death and advise on procedures. They can contact British nationals who are arrested or in prison and, in certain circumstances, can arrange for messages to be sent to relatives or friends. They can give some guidance on organisations that are experienced in tracing missing persons.
There are a number of things which consuls cannot do. They cannot pay hotel, medical or any other bills. They cannot pay for travel tickets except in exceptional circumstances. They cannot undertake work that is more properly done by travel representatives, airlines, banks or motoring organisations. They cannot get better treatment for British nationals in hospital or in prison than is provided for local nationals. As I have already mentioned,


they cannot give legal advice, nor can they instigate court proceedings on behalf of British nationals or interfere in local judicial procedures to get them out of prison.
Consuls cannot investigate a crime or conduct any other kind of investigation which is the preserve of the competent local authorities. They cannot formally assist dual nationals in the country of their second nationality. They cannot obtain work or work permits for British nationals. I say that, because there is some misunderstanding of the activities that consuls can undertake.
I should also like to say something about publicity in consular cases. Publicity in a particular case is a matter of judgment, and one for consultation with individuals or interested parties, often tempered by the advice of their local lawyers. Individuals may not always be aware of the effect that publicity may have on a case, or of any local nuances which may be read into it.
Members of the public are, of course, quite free to air their views in the media, but they would be well advised to consider what the effect might be. We are, naturally, concerned that all avenues should be considered and pursued as appropriate, but the ultimate decision on publicity must be, and always is, for the individuals concerned. Once they have made a decision about whether to pursue publicity, it is highly desirable, and reasonable for us to expect, that they should be prepared to acknowledge the decision that they have taken.
We recognise that the case to which the hon. Member has drawn the House's attention is extremely distressing. We understand the sense of frustration that he and the family must feel. I assure him that we will continue to do all that we properly can to assist his constituents, but, as I have already explained, what we properly can do is very limited.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty six minutes past Twelve o'clock.